Excellent article with so many important points. Simplistic and unauthored memes do need to be called out, especially when they are attempting to quash debate or present spurious arguments. It’s also worth bearing in mind for the overall debate on separation that the Prairie provinces had to fight a prolonged battle to receive the same rights as other provinces for the jurisdiction over natural resources.
Ken, you're right. The court reference says UDI would be unlawful, but accepts that there may be conditions that open the door to it. There is no unilateral legal right to leave, but a clear democratic mandate cannot simply be ignored. That's why the decision remains one of the most important constitutional rulings in Canadian history.
I must first start by apologizing for my delay in responding to your excellent summation and I must then apologize for my lack of scholarship on constitutional matters.
Okay, obligatory apologies have been offered (and hopefully accepted!).
You state that, "The Court ruled unanimously that a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) would be unconstitutional. It also ruled that a referendum producing a clear majority on a clear question would impose a constitutional obligation on the federal government and the other provinces to negotiate in good faith."
I have (inexpertly, to be certain) read the decision in the reference case and it is my recollection that your above statement is absolutely correct. Having said that, it is my further recollection (I read the decision a few months ago) that the Court further noted that if one of the parties to the "negotiations" does not negotiate in good faith that a UDI might be justifiable. Such a UDI would require obvious attempts at good faith negotiations by the seceding party and would require that there be some substantive international recognition of the state so unilaterally seceding. My reading of the language in this latter qualification is that such international recognition not be from some small, insignificant locale with minor population, etc., but that it be a substantive, internationally recognized state such as the United Kingdom, France, the USA and so forth.
My problem is that I am going from memory here and while a very quick review of the reference decision finds discussion on various aspects of a UDI, I was unable to find such a "justification" as I have described.
My point here is not to assert an absolute case but to raise the issue and to acknowledge that I (a mere retired accountant and not a legal scholar) may have been incorrect in my reading of matters. On the other hand, I do not believe I was incorrect. On the other, other hand, well, life is full of surprises, n'est pas?
Excellent article with so many important points. Simplistic and unauthored memes do need to be called out, especially when they are attempting to quash debate or present spurious arguments. It’s also worth bearing in mind for the overall debate on separation that the Prairie provinces had to fight a prolonged battle to receive the same rights as other provinces for the jurisdiction over natural resources.
Ken, you're right. The court reference says UDI would be unlawful, but accepts that there may be conditions that open the door to it. There is no unilateral legal right to leave, but a clear democratic mandate cannot simply be ignored. That's why the decision remains one of the most important constitutional rulings in Canadian history.
Your entitled your own opinion but not entitled to your own facts.
I must first start by apologizing for my delay in responding to your excellent summation and I must then apologize for my lack of scholarship on constitutional matters.
Okay, obligatory apologies have been offered (and hopefully accepted!).
You state that, "The Court ruled unanimously that a unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) would be unconstitutional. It also ruled that a referendum producing a clear majority on a clear question would impose a constitutional obligation on the federal government and the other provinces to negotiate in good faith."
I have (inexpertly, to be certain) read the decision in the reference case and it is my recollection that your above statement is absolutely correct. Having said that, it is my further recollection (I read the decision a few months ago) that the Court further noted that if one of the parties to the "negotiations" does not negotiate in good faith that a UDI might be justifiable. Such a UDI would require obvious attempts at good faith negotiations by the seceding party and would require that there be some substantive international recognition of the state so unilaterally seceding. My reading of the language in this latter qualification is that such international recognition not be from some small, insignificant locale with minor population, etc., but that it be a substantive, internationally recognized state such as the United Kingdom, France, the USA and so forth.
My problem is that I am going from memory here and while a very quick review of the reference decision finds discussion on various aspects of a UDI, I was unable to find such a "justification" as I have described.
My point here is not to assert an absolute case but to raise the issue and to acknowledge that I (a mere retired accountant and not a legal scholar) may have been incorrect in my reading of matters. On the other hand, I do not believe I was incorrect. On the other, other hand, well, life is full of surprises, n'est pas?