Born under the Quiet Revolution, I have seen and heard everything regarding the national question. Above all, I cannot remember a time in Canada when the independence project was not presented as the ultimate guarantee for an impoverished, isolated and terribly suffering Quebec.
They were called the famous “fear arguments”. A bit like those men who used to threaten their wives with abject poverty if they ever felt like packing their suitcase.
Fear is a classic in politics. During the 1980 referendum, how can we forget the No camp’s threats to Quebecers that they would lose their “old age pensions” if the Yes side won?
Even after the No party’s narrow victory in the 1995 referendum, the Chrétien government passed a so-called clarity law. Goal: To scare Quebecers by telling them that every next referendum in the future would be held under its own new “rules.”
Rules that, as it happened, were tailor-made to make the political and legal “process” terribly chaotic.
So it’s easy to understand why Paul St-Pierre Plamondon, the current leader of the Parti Québécois, vows that no financial sacrifice would follow a yes vote. However, we agree that at the moment, with the PQ at 26% in the polls, this discussion is hypothetical to say the least.
Decades of deconstructing fears
This is all the more understandable given that it took former Prime Minister Jacques Parizeau decades to gradually ease Quebecers’ economic fears about the possibility of independence.
But that didn’t stop Pauline Marois from openly saying in 2005, in the middle of the leadership race, that there would be five years of “turbulence” after a yes vote.
Result: She immediately collapsed under the barrage of harsh criticism. Starting from his PQ colleagues.
For what? For in a single sentence she had just confirmed the famous arguments of fear and at the same time destroyed the long work of Jacques Parizeau in the opposite direction. Twenty years later, PSPP is cycling through the same quicksand.
The rattling of fears
Or he recognizes that while the creation of a country involves some sacrifices, these are limited and offset by the new powers it gives Quebec. In this case, a flood of “You see this is going to cost you dearly!” will fall on him.
Or he does what he does. He denies any possible victim and is accused of wearing incredible “rose-colored glasses.” In short, to lie or live in a parallel universe. It’s impossible to get out of there.
From the moment the issue of independence comes back to the table, after the PQ’s silence on the issue for almost 30 years, no position on the consequences of a yes vote, neither cheerful nor realistic, will achieve consensus.
If economic fears were not so often presented to Quebecers, whether they are for or against sovereignty, they would certainly be more comfortable discussing it openly.
Because yes, every national independence inevitably requires sacrifices. Individually and collectively. The real question lies elsewhere.
Knowing whether, in the event of a very hypothetical Yes majority, the Prime Minister holding a referendum has done everything necessary in advance to make the transition as secure as possible from a financial perspective.
So far only one man has proven this: Jacques Parizeau. He was prepared in a way no one would imagine today.
Who else can or will claim to be able to do this? The question is not trivial.
