Now Jack is dodging trying to reconcile his contradiction.
He wound up dodging and weaving when asked to explain how to reconcile the contradiction.
"The position of the Supreme Court (which later became the Clarity Act), was accepted by the two sides of this great debate," Layton said. "So there is no necessity to go further then this because we have an excellent context for this possible discussion on this possible question."
Pressed about whether the NDP still recognizes the 50per-cent level, the furthest Layton would go was to say: "It's there in our declaration.
"We'll follow the decision of the Supreme Court judges," he reiterated. "We think that's an appropriate framework. We don't need to be revisiting legislation.
"But our goal is not to see another referendum. Our goal is to create the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec."
The term "winning conditions," is the one Layton used during the election campaign to portray himself as a strong nationalist or defender of Quebec's interests as a way to crush the separatist Bloc Québécois.
Jack Layton needs to read up on the history of the Social Credit Party after the 1963 election.
ReplyDeleteIts coming.
Quebec can leave with 50% plus one: Layton
ReplyDeletehttp://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/26/quebec-can-leave-with-50-plus-one-layton/
You don't seem to understand what the phrase "winning conditions" means. The sovereignty movement has used this phrase to describe political conditions they seek to create in order enable them to win a vote in favour of sovereignty. Jack Layton has used the phrase in the reverse manner to describe the conditions necessary to have Quebec sign on to the constitutional amendments of 1982. The phrase has nothing to do with the 50%+1 question.
ReplyDeleteAlso, you should read the story you linked to from 2004. Layton never said he would repeal the Clarity Act--those were the reporter's words. Layton said that passing Clarity Act unilaterlly (over the objection of ALL political parties in Quebec) was a mistake like repatriating the Constitution without Quebec signing on, but--as with repatriation--he never proposed repealing it as that would only re-open an unproductive debate.
Furthermore, there is nothing contradictory about the NDP's position. As Tom Flanagan pointed out on today's Power & Politics, Stephen Harper has long supported the clear 50%+1 majority standard for judging the results of a referendum.
it didnt happen in 1995, why would they succeed now?Layton is poking a hornet's nest and will be stung badly
ReplyDelete