Generalitat chief Aragonés (ERC) is now calling for an Openness law similar to the one in Canada, so as not to miss the train for independence that Puigdemont’s party, the Junts, continues. And one of two things: either the Republicans did not examine what the political process was that undermined Québec’s independence, or they just want to buy time and avoid losing votes.
The process in question began with the “October 1970 events” (avoid using the terms terror, violence and independence, which evokes the American civil war) and led to a single victim. In Montréal, Québec’s economic and financial capital, the Québec Liberation Front (FLQ), a minor Algerian group, kidnapped British consul James Cross and Federal Labor Minister Pierre, seven years after detonating their first bomb. la porta. The then Canadian Prime Minister, Pierre Elliot Trudeau, reacted, at the request of his Quebec counterpart, by declaring the State of War Act and sending the Army to Montreal. In the following days, the police harassed the terrorists; The FLQ responded with the murder of Pierre Laporte (10.17.1970) before releasing their other hostages in exchange for safe passage to Cuba. The most serious crisis in modern Québec was the source of the end of the FLQ and terrorism and a radical shift in French-speaking nationalism.
Also in Montréal in 1967, de Gaulle blatantly used the provocative phrase: “Long live the Québec pound!” In 1968, the ‘Parti Québecois’ was formed in the French-speaking province and managed to hold two independence referendums, one in 1980 and the other in 1995. ”, resoundingly defeated 59.5% against 40.5%. In the second, the pro-independence lost by a very narrow margin: 49.5% versus 50.5%, a much more confusing approach as the proposal is a kind of joint sovereignty. The Quebecois Bloc attributed the defeat to immigrant votes and fears of the economic consequences of secession.
Disturbed by the sovereign determination that threatened a new referendum, the federal government submitted the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, which acts as the Constitutional Court. And in August 1998 he published a brilliant and enlightening opinion, which can be summed up as follows:
a).-Quebec does not enjoy the right to self-determination.
b).- Separation will only be possible if a “clear majority” declares “absolutely” not to belong to Canada. Among other reasons, because “Democracy . . . means much more than simple government of the majority.”
c)-Separation of a province “according to the Constitution” cannot be accepted unilaterally without consulting the other members of the Confederation within the constitutional framework. And that’s because “in the 131 years since the founding of the Confederation, the people of the state and territory, federalism, democracy, constitutionalism, the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision by Quebecois to secede will put those relations at risk.” “The constitution provides order and stability, and as a result the separation of a province ‘according to the Constitution’ cannot be accepted unilaterally, i.e. without deliberation within the constitutional framework with the other members of the Confederation.”
In line with the Supreme Court’s position, the federal government of Prime Minister Chrétien—Quebecois—enforced the “Clarity Act” in 2000, which determined that if a new consultation were held in Québec, a confused issue would be resolved. With all its political, social and economic consequences, it is not counted who does not make it clear to voters whether they are for or against independence. Nor will a short simple majority be enough to overturn Canadian federal unity: Parliament will decide whether the question is clear enough and whether the qualified majority is adequately representative.
Québec’s independence movement is today a minority power that no longer even dreams of independence. Law and democracy defeated rupture and disorder.