The 'neverendum referendum' is a Canadian peculiarity caused by the fact that our separatists keep trying to achieve sovereignty through diplomatic means, and call a referendum on the subject every couple of years.

Havn't we all learned that the only way to achieve sovereignty is through strife, civil war, and bribing the UN, the Versailles conference, Woodrow Wilson, or other body of arbitrarily powerful people?

Neverendum is really a good term to describe the actual problem. As a moderate separatist I understand the reasons for sovereignty but I also find normal that each referendum fail. The main problem is in the questions.

Questions are often playing ping-pong between federal and Quebec government for a few weeks before being reveal to the public. Because each side want to win, the question become very ambiguous and nobody really understands if they must check "Yes" or "No" to say, “I want it”.

The first question in 1980 was about negotiating the FUTUR sovereignty of Quebec. People were really confused between choosing an "new country" or giving the right to the Quebec government to continue his negotiations for a further POSSIBLE new referendum about doing it or not. This has ended with a poll of 40.4% pro and.59.6% cons. This is too close to really answer the question as it is. This didn’t mean half the people don’t want a country. It barely means they don’t want perpetual discussion.

The second question in 1995 was about the Charlottetown agreement. Again, it wasn’t about the sovereignty but about further discussions.

In conclusion, if we want neverendum to end someday then the question must be really clear. "Do you accept that Quebec become sovereign? Yes or No".

IMOO: I think the idea of an independent state is the best. 
Staying in Canada but having a real control over our own things. 
The model USA has may not be perfect but I am sure it’s better than repeating endlessly. 
But I like Canada … I mean Quebec.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.