魁北克有可能會完全獨立嗎？

01-20

可能性極小，魁人黨因為聲稱要發動公投，支持率狂跌。魁省大部分人都了解，脫離了聯邦魁省經濟將遭到重創。魁人黨的提案也挺二的，要求獨立後聯邦提供軍事保護，繼續使用加元，而且聯邦央行董事會要繼續保留席位。魁省的債務很高，所以聯邦的反應很簡單，要獨立，先還錢。。。

不可能

首先，憲法方面

1998年，最高法院的結論為依據國際法與加拿大法律魁北克沒有權力單方面獨立

之後，經濟方面

魁北克的各種「民族企業」，都紛紛將總部搬至多倫多，比如，蒙特利爾銀行，加拿大航空的總部都在多倫多。如果魁北克獨立的話，各大企業肯定都要紛紛撤走，這種情況下，魁北克經濟基本就垮了

政治方面

記得前幾年看魁北克獨立的支持率，好像才20%左右，支持魁北克獨立的大部分都是中老年人，而大部分年輕人都反對魁北克獨立。看看2014年的魁北克大選的支持率，支持獨立的魁北克人黨大概至佔了議會中三分之一不到的席位。反對獨立的魁北克自由黨，當選超過半數席位，說明總體上來講，大部分的魁北克人都是反對獨立的。

人口方面

魁北克省8百多萬人口，光蒙特利爾就佔了八分之一還多，很大一部分蒙特利爾人都可以流暢講雙語，而一般說英語的魁北克人的都很反感獨立。魁北克的移民們也都很反感獨立。另外，支持魁北克獨立的人，大多數都是不會英語的中老年人。

另外：據我感覺，現在加拿大政府對於魁北克獨立的政策就是：拖。等這些支持獨立的中老年人都死沒了，也就獨立不成了。

可能性不大，上次公投失敗後，聯邦政府好像修改了相關法律。

又公投了一次，果然是要失敗的。。

話說要是獨立了學校網站的後綴要改叫.qc了啊擦...

總之呢獨立這種事還是要按照基本法來的嘛，你說我們滋不資磁，當然不資磁了。天朝的達賴喇嘛，不知道比魁瓜高到哪裡去了，還和外國領導談笑風生。馬華公投一完就倒台了..嘖

就這渣經濟，這破基建，建個新橋還要恬著臉找聯邦要錢，獨立個毛線。

現在魁北克獨立其實就是向加國中央要錢的另外手段而已，說白了就是撒潑滾打~

我從另一個角度來分析一下。

大多數魁北克人是法國後裔，與法國有千絲萬縷的聯繫，各種風俗習慣也與當今的法國大同小異。雖然蒙特利爾是世界上最大的雙語城市，大家想當然的認為它是法式和英式的融合，但其實基本就是法國的風貌。如果從法國直飛魁北克，會有飛了幾個小時還沒出國的感覺。當然魁北克人對自己身份的認同既不是加拿大人，也不是法國人，而是魁北克人。

如果獨立的話，至少需要得到當初的「母國」或「宗主國」 - 法國的支持。法國官方對魁北克獨立的態度我不清楚，但是我記得當初比利時瓦隆大區要從比利時獨立，甚至併入法國的風聲出現後，法國是表示不支持的，因此我估計法國也不會支持魁北克獨立。

再從民間來說，我十幾年來也結識了不少法國朋友，也跟很多人討論過加拿大，討論過魁北克。得出的結論是，除了極少數在魁北克有親戚的法國人，大多數法國朋友都不待見魁北克人，覺得魁北克法語口音非常怪，也不喜歡魁北克，說一年有半年都在下雪，甚至有人說給他們錢都不去魁北克。也許我的法國朋友們都是個例，並不能代表大多數法國人，但就從這些人來看，也不會支持魁北克獨立的。

你問政府自不自此，當然自此啊

還是很有可能的，只要Parti Quebecois 或者 CAQ 上台隨時都可能會再來一次公投，他們才不會管加拿大政府還給不給魁省掏錢。這四十年來魁省已經把大部分說英語的都逼走了，像前兩次公投那麼多的英裔魁省人肯定都投的反對票，但是現在已經沒有那麼多英裔了，再加上經濟不好，普通人更容易被民族主義忽悠。所以說再來一次公投還是很可能就獨立了的。有人說根據加拿大憲法blah blah，可惜魁省政府從來就沒簽過加拿大憲法，也怨老土豆1982年時簽新憲法也不帶著我們魁省，欺負人欺負到這個份上，魁省索性也就一直拖著唄。所以魁省的人權問題也沒地方講理，因為加拿大人權憲章人家也沒簽，也不承認。

獨立也要按照基本法

魁省獨立的問題類似於一個陳詞濫調啦。在魁省歷史上曾有過轟轟烈烈的獨立運動。但這樣的時代已經過去，目前的魁省早已不是20年前的魁省。

在日常生活中，沒人提這事兒，因為這已經不是大家關心的問題了。只有到了大選的年份，有些黨派跳出來用獨立這陳詞濫調拉老年選民的選票。偶爾魁省政客在跟聯邦政府討價還價時，拎出獨立這事兒威脅聯邦：不給糖，你不怕俺們離家出走？

早在1998年，加拿大最高法院就魁省公投單方鬧獨立的問題作出了裁決。以下英文部分是該裁決的一部分相關的總結性的內容，感興趣的可以參考。若有興趣閱讀完整的裁決，可以根據判決書的編號去網上找完整的判決書閱讀，既有英語的也有法語的版本。

最高法院裁決認為從加拿大憲法的角度看，一個省加入聯邦時是自願加入的，聯邦體制賦予了各個省權利的同時也意味著各個省要履行應盡的義務。在聯邦體制運行了一百多年後，各個省都與其它省及聯邦政府產生了千絲萬縷的聯繫，因此，根據民主的原則，一個省的獨立問題，不再只是這個省的人民自家的事兒，其它省的人民也有發聲的權力。一個清晰的獨立問題獲得確切的該省大多數人民的支持時，這個省要坐下來與聯邦政府及其它省一起協商是否可以獨立。

從國際法的角度看，某個『人民』有充分的權力要求獨立自治，前提是這個『人民』受統治者壓迫剝削，沒有平等的自我發展的權利。顯然，魁省人民在聯邦體系下有充分的自我治理自我發展的權力，作為加拿大的少數人口（法語系人口），魁省人民對發展自己的經濟文化有充分的自主權力，並受到應有的尊重與保護。

若魁省不在法制框架內解決問題，而選擇強行脫離加拿大而獨立，這將成為一個國際政治問題。那麼，周邊國家以及其它國家是否會承認這樣獨立出來的魁北克呢？這是很現實的問題。但這就不再是最高法院能給答案的問題了。

Reference re Secession of Quebec, [1998] 2 SCR 217, 1998 CanLII 793 (SCC)

The questions posed by the Governor in Council by way of Order in Council P.C. 1996-1497, dated September 30, 1996, read as follows:

1. Under the Constitution of Canada, can the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

2. Does international law give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally? In this regard, is there a right to self-determination under international law that would give the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec the right to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally?

3. In the event of a conflict between domestic and international law on the right of the National Assembly, legislature or government of Quebec to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally, which would take precedence in Canada?

(2) Question 1

The Constitution is more than a written text. It embraces the entire global system of rules and principles which govern the exercise of constitutional authority. A superficial reading of selected provisions of the written constitutional enactment, without more, may be misleading. It is necessary to make a more profound investigation of the underlying principles animating the whole of the Constitution, including the principles of federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. Those principles must inform our overall appreciation of the constitutional rights and obligations that would come into play in the event that a clear majority of Quebecers votes on a clear question in favour of secession.

The Court in this Reference is required to consider whether Quebec has a right to unilateral secession. Arguments in support of the existence of such a right were primarily based on the principle of democracy. Democracy, however, means more than simple majority rule. Constitutional jurisprudence shows that democracy exists in the larger context of other constitutional values. Since Confederation, the people of the provinces and territories have created close ties of interdependence (economic, social, political and cultural) based on shared values that include federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and respect for minorities. A democratic decision of Quebecers in favour of secession would put those relationships at risk. The Constitution vouchsafes order and stability, and accordingly secession of a province "under the Constitution" could not be achieved unilaterally, that is, without principled negotiation with other participants in Confederation within the existing constitutional framework.

Our democratic institutions necessarily accommodate a continuous process of discussion and evolution, which is reflected in the constitutional right of each participant in the federation to initiate constitutional change. This right implies a reciprocal duty on the other participants to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to change the constitutional order. A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.

Quebec could not, despite a clear referendum result, purport to invoke a right of self-determination to dictate the terms of a proposed secession to the other parties to the federation. The democratic vote, by however strong a majority, would have no legal effect on its own and could not push aside the principles of federalism and the rule of law, the rights of individuals and minorities, or the operation of democracy in the other provinces or in Canada as a whole. Democratic rights under the Constitution cannot be divorced from constitutional obligations. Nor, however, can the reverse proposition be accepted: the continued existence and operation of the Canadian constitutional order could not be indifferent to a clear expression of a clear majority of Quebecers that they no longer wish to remain in Canada. The other provinces and the federal government would have no basis to deny the right of the government of Quebec to pursue secession should a clear majority of the people of Quebec choose that goal, so long as in doing so, Quebec respects the rights of others. The negotiations that followed such a vote would address the potential act of secession as well as its possible terms should in fact secession proceed. There would be no conclusions predetermined by law on any issue. Negotiations would need to address the interests of the other provinces, the federal government and Quebec and indeed the rights of all Canadians both within and outside Quebec, and specifically the rights of minorities.

The negotiation process would require the reconciliation of various rights and obligations by negotiation between two legitimate majorities, namely, the majority of the population of Quebec, and that of Canada as a whole. A political majority at either level that does not act in accordance with the underlying constitutional principles puts at risk the legitimacy of its exercise of its rights, and the ultimate acceptance of the result by the international community.

The task of the Court has been to clarify the legal framework within which political decisions are to be taken "under the Constitution" and not to usurp the prerogatives of the political forces that operate within that framework. The obligations identified by the Court are binding obligations under the Constitution. However, it will be for the political actors to determine what constitutes "a clear majority on a clear question" in the circumstances under which a future referendum vote may be taken. Equally, in the event of demonstrated majority support for Quebec secession, the content and process of the negotiations will be for the political actors to settle. The reconciliation of the various legitimate constitutional interests is necessarily committed to the political rather than the judicial realm precisely because that reconciliation can only be achieved through the give and take of political negotiations. To the extent issues addressed in the course of negotiation are political, the courts, appreciating their proper role in the constitutional scheme, would have no supervisory role.

(3) Question 2

The Court was also required to consider whether a right to unilateral secession exists under international law. Some supporting an affirmative answer did so on the basis of the recognized right to self-determination that belongs to all "peoples". Although much of the Quebec population certainly shares many of the characteristics of a people, it is not necessary to decide the "people" issue because, whatever may be the correct determination of this issue in the context of Quebec, a right to secession only arises under the principle of self-determination of people at international law where "a people" is governed as part of a colonial empire; where "a people" is subject to alien subjugation, domination or exploitation; and possibly where "a people" is denied any meaningful exercise of its right to self-determination within the state of which it forms a part. In other circumstances, peoples are expected to achieve self-determination within the framework of their existing state. A state whose government represents the whole of the people or peoples resident within its territory, on a basis of equality and without discrimination, and respects the principles of self?determination in its internal arrangements, is entitled to maintain its territorial integrity under international law and to have that territorial integrity recognized by other states. Quebec does not meet the threshold of a colonial people or an oppressed people, nor can it be suggested that Quebecers have been denied meaningful access to government to pursue their political, economic, cultural and social development. In the circumstances, the "National Assembly, the legislature or the government of Quebec" do not enjoy a right at international law to effect the secession of Quebec from Canada unilaterally.

Although there is no right, under the Constitution or at international law, to unilateral secession, the possibility of an unconstitutional declaration of secession leading to a de facto secession is not ruled out. The ultimate success of such a secession would be dependent on recognition by the international community, which is likely to consider the legality and legitimacy of secession having regard to, amongst other facts, the conduct of Quebecand Canada, in determining whether to grant or withhold recognition. Even if granted, such recognition would not, however, provide any retroactive justification for the act of secession, either under the Constitution of Canada or at international law.

(4) Question 3

In view of the answers to Questions 1 and 2, there is no conflict between domestic and international law to be addressed in the context of this Reference.

可能性總是有的，只是比台灣獨立要難多了。

目前可能性很小

但如果大部分魁北克人堅決獨立，通過公投，那麼加拿大政府有義務來談判相關事宜

但魁北克人自己基本上無法形成多數

曾經魁北克經濟鼎盛時期，獨立確實很有可能。

但是現在隨著蒙特利爾經濟中心地位沒有上世紀八十年代那麼高，如今的魁北克獨立已經是強弩之末。

不過民間希望獨立的魁北克法裔後代還是佔有很大的聲量。

可能性越來越低了。

更多的魁北克人意識到這是不理智的行為。

況且魁北克的鬧獨立的某政黨支持率也不高。

現在的形勢和冷戰時代完全不一樣了。對比蘇格蘭和科西嘉，你可以發現內地人要比本地人更支持獨立，因為這些地方都比較窮，對於內地人來說就是稅收負擔的象徵。但是獨不獨立，第一否決權在本地人手上，結果就可想而知了。

想知道他們獨立後的名稱是什麼鬼。像法蘭西共和國的名稱一樣叫魁北克共和國？~~ 學歐洲那個破碎的版圖裡的一些國家一樣做個國中國？~~