First, Polèse focuses on the ignored half of the sovereignty-association formula - that is, the association that Quebec would try to negotiate with the rest of Canada after a Yes vote. Sovereignist leaders avoid discussing the nature of such an association - or "partnership" as the 1995 referendum question called it. Still, the concept is very much in the picture: Polls suggest that a referendum would never pass without the prospect of a close future relationship with Canada. Polèse casts overdue light on this murky but all-important area.
What a joke. Of course we would have a close future relationship. We would be neighbours. As long as Quebec ponied up their share of the debt, the Rest of Canada were fine.
Half the people who voted oui in 1995 weren't even voting for independence. Their signs featured the Canadian dollar as the O, and had pictures of Canadian passports.
I'm not going to expand on the list off the things Monsieur Polèse mentions as possible negative consequences of separation: Border issues, trade, even language issues as the French find themselves isolated in North America. You can read the article for that. The most important issues of all: Transfer payments, and use of the Canadian dollar are not mentioned. So what's the point of talking about it? Let me say clearly: Quebec won't separate because they receive billions in transfer payments, and pork from Canada. Also, they want central banking done from Ottawa. All the other issues are trivial. Are mere red herrings.
At the end of the article they say this:
Polèse has courageously defied Quebec academia's taboo against a critical analysis of independence. The intellectual elite will surely ignore his apotasy. That's the best way to deal with an unpalatable argument that's hard to refute.
This is still not critical analysis without discussing transfer payments and the Canadian dollar.
Hat tip: Pat
