Can “Autonomous” Quebec in Canada inspire “Eelam” within United Sri Lanka?
April 28th, 2007
By D.B.S. Jeyaraj
Canada’s Francophone majority province of Quebec went to polls a month ago on March 26th to elect a Provincial government . The Quebec Liberal party running Quebec since 2003 came first as expected. In fact Quebec premier Jean Charest called an election a year before it was due in anticipation of a major success. Charest’s liberals who got 46% of the total vote and 76 of 125 seats in 2003 did not fare that well as hoped 4 years later in spite of an early election.
[Quebec Assembly at Night - Photo By MMarsolais]
There were three major upsets.After 129 years the French – majority province elected a minority government to power. The Liberals with 33.1 % of the popular vote got only 48 seats in a legislature of 125. The last time this happened was in 1878. Secondly a third force came to the forefront in Quebec with the Mario Dumont led Action democratique du Quebec (ADQ) winning second place with 41 seats and 30. 8% of the vote.Thirdly Quebec’s separatist party the Parti Quebecois (PQ) suffered a major reversal and was pushed to third place with 36 seats and 28.3 % of the popular vote.
[Quebec premier Jean Charest]
When the Quebec national assembly was dissolved prior to polls the legislative tally was something like this.The Liberals had seventy – two seats; the PQ forty – five seats and the ADQ just five. There was one Independent and two vacancies. The Liberals have come down to earth from 72 to 48 while the ADQ has soared to dizzying heights from 5 to 41 an eightfold increase. The PQ came down to 36 from 45. Its popular vote of 28.3% was the lowest got by the PQ after 1970.
At time of elections being declared the Liberals were way ahead. But soon the PQ was running neck to neck. As campaigning continued the ADQ also surged ahead. Opinion polls suggested that all three parties were near equal in the three – way race.A poll taken on the eve of elections for a Canadian newspaper and TV station saw support for the PQ at 31% , the liberals at 30% and ADQ at 28%. A late resurgence saw the ADQ move ahead of PQ and run close to the Liberals.
[Mario Dumont led Action democratique du Quebec (ADQ)]
The ADQ increased its votes from 18.1% in 2003 to 30. 8% in 2007. The PQ dropped from 33.2 in 2003 to 28. 3% this year. The Liberals were down to 33. 1% from 45. 9 in 2003. It is not difficult to gauge where the ADQ got its new votes from. According to analysts the ADQ cashed in on voters discontented with both the Liberals and PQ.
The new youth vote also went substantially to the ADQ it is said. Many voters it is said knew fully well that the ADQ would not form a government but went ahead and registered votes for it as a protest against the traditional way of politics in the Province.Still the ADQ is now on the threshhold of power and eagerly awaiting the next poll.
“The sense is that at least in Montreal it was a protest vote rather than an affinity to Dumont or the ADQ ” says Antonia Maioni, political science professor at Montreal’s Mcgill university.”now what the ADQ has to do is to perform”she told Canada’s “Globe and Mail” newspaper.
[Andre Boisclair, of Parti Quebecois (PQ)]
Ever since the PQ emerged as a big player in the seventies Quebecoise politics has seen a see – saw struggle between the parties espousing secessionism and those opposing it. Interestingly those defending Canada’s territorial integrity are generally called Federalists while those wanting to separate are loosely termed Sovereigntists.
This is because the Quebec versions of English dominated national parties like the Liberals and Conservatives advocated a greater strenghening of Federalism as a means to contain French separatism and preserve Canada’s unity whereas the separatist PQ couched its secessionism in the demand for a Sovereignty – Association. Thus Federalists are for unity and Sovereigntists want separatism within the Quebec context.
This is in striking contrast to Sri Lanka where those advocating Federalism are charged of conspiring to break up the Country and those riding the high horse of patriotism claiming to be safeguarding Sovereignty. So Federalists in Sri Lanka are unfairly described as separatists and those rigidlly upholding Sovereignty are praised by fellow travellers as patriots preserving unity.
This is because political discourse in Sri Lanka has been clouded with confusion on questions like federalism, devolution, power – sharing, sovereignty etc. A strong, powerful majoritarian lobby equates unity with unitary and refuses to see the merits of unity in diversity. The concept of shared sovereignty is anathema. So Federalism and Sovereignty acquire diametrically opposite meanings in Quebec and Sri Lanka.
This columnist was part of a Sri Lankan media delegation study tour of power sharing in Canada during February – March this year. It was organized by the Forum of Federations in Ottawa and the Canadian High Commission in Colombo. We were in Montreal and Quebec city in early march when the election campaign was in progress.Hoardings and posters were everywhere.
This columnist tried on a modest scale to find which way the wind was blowing. Questions were put privately and in a few instances publicly to the various academics, public servants, professionals and journalists about who they thought was the favourite in electoral stakes. The proverbial franc was proffered for Francophone thoughts on the topic to others like waiters in restaurants, stewards, hotel clerks, taxidrivers, tour guides, coach drivers, souveneir shop attendants, shopkeepers etc also in order to fathom their opinion.
In a sense amateurishly limited “opinion polls” like this depend on who you talk to and where. Generally opinion was divided between the Liberals and PQ as favourites. Montreal was more for the liberals while Quebec city preferred the PQ. The ADQ seemed a non – entity in both Cities when compared to support for the other two.
I remember a taxi driver in Quebec point to posters with Liberal candidates resting their chins on their palms and derisively remark “if they cant even hold their heads high without propping it up how can they help keep the heads of Quebecoise high”? A sophisticated coach driver from Montreal rooting for the Liberals dismissed the PQ and ADQ as a “bunch of red necks from rural Quebec”.The Anglophones and allophones (Non – English, non – French) felt the Liberals were riding high.
It was indeed the Liberals who came first but the real winner was the ADQ. It is now the formal opposition in Quebec.It has set its sights on winning the next election.This party led by its youthful leader Mario Dumont was a dark horse when the race began. The ADQ was expected to fare better than 2003 but not to this extent. Besides there had been false hopes in 2003 where the ADQ was expected to do very well but ended up with only five seats.
This was another instance of distortions caused by the ” first past the post winner” voting system. This time however there was greater equity between votes polled and seats won by all three parties. The ADQ performed well beyond expectations. It won in rural Quebec, dented urban areas and even impacted on the “English Island of Montreal in the French sea of Quebec”.
Apart from winning in 41 seats the ADQ came second in another 44. While its victory margin was very narrow in seventeen seats the party also came quite close to winning in another twenty – one.
The ADQ now holds significant power in the National assembly. The minority Liberal government is dependent on it to stay in office. No party wants fresh elections in a hurry. But the ADQ will not be content to languish in opposition for long. It would like to gain power and form a government of its own in the future. It has a dynamic and ambitious leader now called “Super Mario” who will not play second fiddle for long.
University of Sherbrooke Political science teacher Jean – Hermann Guay told the “Globe and Mail” newspaper “The ADQ is very close to power. This is not a chance victory”.
“Tthe potential for growth for the ADQ is even stroger than we would have thought” University of Montreal political scientist Louis Massicotte told the same newspaper.
Laval University professor of Political science and a former ADQ president Guy La forest told “Globe and Mail” that the party had performed much better than expected. “they had a game plan for 95 ridings (electorates) and managed to be competitive in 90 out of 95 ridings” Laforest reportedly said.He further said “they accomplished a feat unique in Quebec or Canada. I dont know of a team so small, so poor and with so little resources achieved such an impressive result in an election. ”
Last month’s hustings saw the traditional political tussle between Federalists and Sovereigntists in Quebec undergoing a seismic change.The right of centre ADQ has beaten the separatist PQ to third place and emerged a close second to Quebec’s federalist Liberals. A third political force has risen in Quebec.More significantly the ADQ has brought into Quebec politics a third element – Autonomism.
The ADQ campaigned among other things on a platform of Autonomism. This policy is derived from concepts like autonomy or autonomous. It is a sort of middle way between the Federalist and Sovereigntist schools of thought. The ADQ is not for separatism. It does not want Quebec to secede. But it wants radical forms of power – sharing between Ottawa and Quebec. The idea is to obtain greater powers and autonomy for Quebec within a united Canada.
Against that backdrop Dumont’s success has been hailed as progress in English Canada. The PQ is seen as routed along with its plan of holding another referendum to determine Quebec’s status within or “outside” Canada. Since Dumont has denounced separatism the Federalists like to depict the ADQ as being in their camp. From that perspective the PQ or secessionists are outnumbered in Quebec.
But the French nationalists are not of the same mind. To them the ADQ is a party strongly opposed to the current federalist status quo. The PQ claims resonance with the ADQ objective of empowering Quebec and enhancing its strength. In that sense the ADQ success is seen as an overarching victory for the forces of Quebecoise nationalism.
Thus both sides perceive the ADQ to be one of “theirs” and combine the vote blocs to argue that together either side holds nearly two – thirds of Quebec votes. It is a variation of the ” door being half – open or half – shut “premise. In this case it is a “two – thirds shut or open”argument.
The irony is that the ADQ owes its success greatly to the disillusionment among traditional Liberal and PQ supporters. The voters wanted a change in the decades old federalism vs sovereigntist debate. The ADQ with its vision of a middle – way option “autonomism” signalled just that. Trying to draw in the ADQ to their respective folds therefore seems clumsy rather than astute politics by the Federal and Sovereigntist schools.
Relating a personal anecdote may be appropriate at this juncture. During our study tour the question of Quebec came up frequently while interacting with officials, academics, experts and opinion makers in English Canada. Many of them seemed a little impatient of it all and appeared not to take the issue too seriously. One “quip” purportedly sourced to an Anglophone stand – up comic was often related to us as being illustrative of Quebecoise sentiments.
” We want a strong and Independent Quebec within a united and powerful Canada” went the line evoking appreciative mirth among those quoting it.The one – liner portrayed Quebec separatism as an inherent contradiction .It was as if the Francophone nationalists want to both keep and eat their croissant.This “joke” was often repeated as being indicative of Quebec’s bona fides or lack of it on sovereignty. It was also demonstrative of how some sections in rest of Canada were dismissive of Quebecoise aspirations.
Some of us quoted this “joke” to a few Francophones while in Quebec province. They were not as amused as their English counterparts. Many politely declined to comment. A few smiled mechanically without any sign of seeing the humour in it. But it was a young academic from Laval University who provided meaningful insight during a lunch time conversation.
Initially he exploded angrily. “This is no joke” he remonstrated as his face reddened. “The ‘Anglaise’ do not understand our depths of feeling on this matter and by making fun of us are insulting us” he exclaimed. Later he mellowed and apologised for his outburst even as we explained profusely our ignorance in this and expressed regrets over being insensitive.
He then went on to explain in detail that the line “Independent Quebec within a united Canada” aptly summed up much of what many Quebec nationalists felt about the whole question. This was no contradiction in terms as perceived by some in English Canada but a much preferred serious option to many in French Canada.
” Many people here want to be very self – reliant and Quebec to function independently but they do not want to break from Canada either. This does not mean that they accept the present status quo but it also does not mean they want to go separately either. What they want is to be a strong Quebec inside Canada. But if this does not happen then some other course like full independence may become desirable”.
With the wisdom of hindsight it seems to me now that the young academic was actually articulating the mindset of what was the ADQ’s constituency. A whole lot of reasons are available for the ADQ’s sweeping gains. Chief among them is this desire on the part of many Quebec nationalists for the province to remain within Canada yet acquire much more powers and privileges. Dumont himself subscribes to this view. Thus the “Autonomist” cry struck a responsive chord among voters.
An autonomous Quebec within Canada was exactly the kind of “soft” nationalism many Quebecers wanted at this point of time. They were disillusioned by the recurring phenomena of referendae on the sovereignty question.. Besides the sovereigntist option is a leap into the unknown. Many are reluctant to take that plunge. The vague evasiveness of the PQ on certain aspects of this question has not helped much either.
The PQ contested this poll on the most radical platform of its history where its leader Andre Boisclair pledged to hold a referendum immediately after the poll.. Liberal premier Jean Charest counted on people being wary of another referendum and voting for him to prevent it..
What has happened is that the ADQ provided a third alternative to people who did not want to choose between federalism or sovereignty. They did not want a secessionist refrendum but also did not want to be seen as accepting Ottawa’s writ.Dupont’s autonomist platform of “affirmation without separation” reaped the harvest.
Dupont’s’s cry for autonomy is not anything new. Maurice Duplessis , the former Union nationale party premier of Quebec proposed “autonomism” as political credo in 1956.He argued for devolution of powers from Ottawa for Quebec and wanted to minimise Federal incursion into Provincial matters as far as possible. It is to Dumont’s credit that he has revived “Autonomism” as viable political ideology to this extent of success.
The ADQ leader Mario Dumont is a political animal of great charisma. Born on May 19th 1970 in Cacouna, Quebec , Dumont obtained a degree in economics from Concordia University in 1993.A protegee of Quebec’s former Liberal premier Robert Bourassa, Mario Dumont was president of Quebec Liberal ’s youth wing in 1990 – 92. The Meech lake accord ushered in during former Conservative Prime Minister Brian Mulroney envisaged special status for Quebec as a “distinct society” within Canada. That and and also the damage control exercise of Charlottetown failed due to opposition by some Provinces of “English” Canada.
This disappointment led to Dumont breaking from Liberals and forming together with Jean Allaire the ADQ in 1994. Later Dumont took charge of the party. He was first elected to Riviere – du – loup riding in 1994 and was re – elected again and again and again iin 1998 , 2003 and 2007.He was the lone ADQ legislator till 2003 when ADQ got five seats with nearly one – fifths of the vote. He is married to Marie Claude – Barrette and has three children Angela, Charles and Juliette.
Though Dumont is against sovereignty now there was a time when he supported it. During the 1995 referendum on the question Dumont was on the side of the Sovereigntists. He is a staunch nationalist whose vision coincides greatly with much of rural Canada. The 36 year old Dumont leads what has been virtually a “one – man show” in the past. He inherits with this election a caucus of young, untested colleagues who share his vision..
The last election was testimony to his vision and political acumen. By appealing to both ends of the spectrum with appropriate tactics Dumont has created a new, third constituency incorporating elements from both schools of thought. With both sides claiming the ADQ “soul” as theirs, it remains to be seen as to how Dumont will steer his ship through unchartered waters without veering to one or the other bank.
“He (Dumont) incarnates a nationalism that isn’t sovereigntist” Jean – Hermann Guat of Sherbrooke University told “Globe and Mail”.”it’s nationalism that wants to seeQuebec preserve its powers but not becessarily break away from Canada.It’s a more prudent kind of nationalism. Mr. Dumont plays both sides and in that sense, he resembles a lot of Quebeckers”, he said.
Laval University professor Guy Laforest described Mario Dumont thus to “Globe and Mail”. He (Dumont) is a Quebec nationalist leader. Some people in English Canada don’t like it and they would want him to embrace the concept of ‘one nation, one country’ but that will never happen”.
This strong assertiveness of Nationalism is what worries some . While articulating the soft nationalistic cry of “autonomism” Dumont has mixed his campaign with hard rhetoric about identity politics too. “we cannot defend the Quebecois identity with mushy words that no one understands.We cannot defend the Quebecois identity with one knee on the ground” he once famously said.
Two controversial aspects of his political agenda is the proposal to encourage more children among Francophones in Quebec and his emphasis on “reasonable accommodation” where the onus is on new immigrants and visible minorities to assimiliate in Quebec. People are also concerned about the ultimate implications of the ADQ goal of “an autonomous state of Quebec within Canada”. How will it evolve in the future?. Will the dream turn into a nightmare?
Others however are sceptical of Dumont. They feel that he has changed positions in the past and so is likely to do so in the future too. It would all depend on which stance would yield the most dividends politically is the cynical view. Of course practical politics does not make a virtue out of consistency but it appears that some are missing the “idealism” in Dumont’s constituency.
The future would therefore depend on how Dumont performs and retains his support base while maximising it further. If voters from Federal folds are to be drawn in the platform has to be more accommodative and flexible. If PQ votes are to be attracted a greater amount of hard – line radical policies are necessary. Laying the emphasis on one or the other is likely to repel support from contrarian blocs. How these contending factors will play out in the political arena and how “super”Mario Dumont creates a seemingly new “autonomist” school of thought will determine the ADQ’s future in Quebec politics.
How Dumont will negotiate an “autonomist” political future for Quebec will help greatly in resolving the simmering crisis of Canada. The ADQ will be the new experiment of exploring the potential of greater autonomy for Quebec within Canada. The concept of an “independent Quebec within a united Canada” is an alluring challenge.
Its success or failure could impact on Sri Lanka too. The Quebec demand for secession had a demonstrative effect in Sri Lanka as it was a rare if not unique instance of secessioinism within the so called first world. Later attempts to contain these separatist tendencies through Constitutional accommodation were made. They too were inspirational as possible models of Conflict resolution to emulate in Sri Lanka .
Now the advent of the ADQ has re- introduced another path which could be followed in Sri Lanka if found successful in Canada. While granting that the experience of one country may not be appropriate for another there is no need to reject anything outright without trying to elicit lessons either.
[Paul Chomedey, sieur de Maisonneuve (February 15, 1612 – September 9, 1676) was a French military officer and the founder of Montreal, Statue in Montreal]
The federalist – sovereigntist debate in Canada has received fresh impetus through the third factor of autonomism. In Sri Lanka a war rages while the feeble debate is about unitary versus separate. The third alternative of a federal or quasi – federal Constitution in place of both the one – state and two- state theories is yet to take off. The unitarists emphasising sovereignty depict “federalism” as a recipe for secession. Ironically the separatists perceive advocates of federalism among Tamils as traitors accepting Sinhala hegemony.
In this dark tunnel one can only imagine a tiny glow of light in the form of “autonomism” in Canada. If the ADQ could achieve something tangible for Quebec within Canada it could be an experience to draw on for Sri Lanka. If an autonomous Quebec is possible within a united Canada would it be too poetical to conjure up visions of an “autonomous Eelam within a united Sri Lanka”?.
Given the current climate of brutal conflict and passionate opposition to the very concept of devolution such notions seem fanciful. One cannot extend the silver lining to cover the dark cloud. But then was it not Alexander Pope who wrote of “hope springing eternal in the human breast” ? And then there is always the inspiring myth of Sisyphus and his rolling boulder!
transCurrents feedback : editor@transcurrents.com
transCurrents feedback :Contact DBS Jeyaraj : djeyaraj2005@yahoo.com
Entry Filed under: transCurrents
47 Comments Add your own
1. Gloria Abraham | April 28th, 2007 at 3:07 am
Thank you Mr. jeyaraj for an informative article on Quebec elections. The ADQ and its policy of autonomism looks to be a good compromise solution. As you have suggested it may be good example for Sri Lanka to follow.Let us hope God changes hearts of those in power to be flexible.
2. Thillai. T. Thillaiambalam | April 28th, 2007 at 3:14 am
An autonomous Tamil Eelam within United Sri Lanka. What an imaginative , powerful idea. Ideas of unitary state and separate state can be overcome only by ideas like this proposing autonomous state in united Country. Ideas can be defeated only by superior ideas. No one can stop an idea whose time has come
3. Guna.N. Gunaratnam | April 28th, 2007 at 3:22 am
Writer has suggested bright idea. Having autonomous Eelam inside united Sri Lanka like powerful Quebec inside undivided Canada is a good thing. But reality in SL is different. Mahinda chinthanai has broken North – East unity and is Singalising East. Will they listen to DBS Jeyaraj?He is dreaming.I think writer Mr Jeyaraj initials DBS stand for DREAMING BRILLIANT SCHEMES!!!
4. KK Nathan | April 28th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Singalese leaders make mistake of wanting to make Country unitary and for majority race and religion only. Tamil leaders make mistake of wanting to divide Country and having armed fighting. Solution for this is strong regional autonomy for Tamil areas in one Sr Lanka. Like Quebec autonomy in Canada. Mr. DBS article very helpful in this matter
5. A. Thevaraja | April 28th, 2007 at 3:34 am
Mr. DBS writing about Tamil Eelam inside Sri Lanka. But I listen to Tamil radio in Canada. There experts say that independent Tamil Eelam is coming soon. If so why should we be inside sri lanka with Singalm people? Why not have our own Tamil Eelam outside Sri Lanka?
6. Ctezen | April 28th, 2007 at 7:41 am
Good that DBS Jeyaraj, finally writing about Canada. This is very interesting than knowing and writing about Sri Lankan affiars which located thousands of miles away from Canada.
Good Work.
C.Zen
7. Ravi Randeniya | April 28th, 2007 at 7:59 am
What are you, nuts? Separation in SL will be over 17 million dead Sinhalese.
If there was any inspiration from Quebec, you Tamils ought to join to join the civilization and follow the non-violence democratic path that was available to them.
8. Sahadevan | April 28th, 2007 at 10:00 am
Well done! DBS you are trying to straighten the dogs tail lets see. But one thing is very certain that Singhalese will never come out from the mahavamsa mindset and the Vanni Veeran from separate state.But ultimate losers going to be Tamils because day by day we are losing the land and people.Some self style political analysts in Canada miss leading Tamils that Eelam is around the corner.
9. mathew | April 28th, 2007 at 11:45 am
Good work DBS. A grand idea set in motion by great minds, if written about often and talked about as much will surely come to past. Keep up the good work.
10. Suresh M | April 29th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Who cares whether Tamils separate, or 17 million Sinhalese die over Tamils leaving. I am glad that I left this mess two decade ago, and have been living in peace ever since. Thank you J.R. (Is he still alive!!)
11. Thillai.T.Thillaiambalam | April 29th, 2007 at 4:43 am
Speaking of autonomy in Sri Lanka I will like to post paragraphs from what prophetic leftist leader. Dr. Colvin R de Silva wrote in 1984.
“The immediate task, however, is not to decide with whom to talk. The immediate task is for the Government to come forward with its own positive proposals – and to speedily implement them, as the only means of finding out whether they are (a) practicable and (b) adequate, if not to solve the problem at least to set going a process that can lead to a solution.
It must be said openly that the Government can take such a step only if it can make up its own mind … What has also to be said clearly, firmly and actively, therefore, is that if the Government cannot even now, in this urgent situation, make up its mind about the proposals required in the situation, then, the Government must go; for it would itself have become the major obstacle in the way of the peaceful negotiated settlement of the problem.
What is to be done? Radical devolution, the only way out
The answer is first of all to carry through the devolution of power from the centre to the peripheries, through popularly elected institutions of a new state structure which is built on the basis of self-management. Therein lies the crux of the matter. Only the devolution of power from the centre to the peripheries on the basis of self-management of the people’s affairs can provide the framework for the solution of the majority-minority problem in Sri Lanka within a single state which runs the whole of Sri Lanka as one country.
It will be appreciated that the vital question in respect of the new state structure … is the nature and function of the power and functions devolved (to these bodies) at each level. There must be a genuine devolution that enables genuine self-government in the areas covered at each level; and genuine self government requires that the Central Government’s relation with those institutions is much more that of an adviser assisting them than that of an upper controller.
Incidentally, it is to be stressed that the devolution proposed is not in anyway intended to be confined to the North and East. The richness of the concept is seen from the ready relevance of the scheme to the problem that has arisen in the North and East.
It is only when a system such as this is actually established and set going, with the participation of all sections willing to participate, that it will be possible to find a way of negotiating an end to the acute military confrontation to which all attention has been directed. To take the position that no radical changes can be set going until the confrontation is overcome is really to say there will be no radical change; only radical changes such as those proposed … can bring those fresh forces of peace into the arena of war which is the crying need for getting out of the present murderous situation. Nothing less will do. ”
Will the Colombo powers listen at least now?
12. Gloria Abraham | April 29th, 2007 at 4:08 am
Mr. Jeyaraj writes that we must imagine glow at end of dark tunnel. But I see some light at end of tunnel. Listen to what Constitutional expert NK Choksy the UNP national list MP has to say on the subject. I reproduce news article from Daily Mirror of 28th April.
While the ruling SLFP has proposed the district council as the unit of power devolution, the main Opposition the UNP has proposed to continue with a further strengthened provincial council system.
“There could hardly be a possibility for achieving uniformity in development under the proposed DC system. No area of the country will get developed in a meaningful manner under such a system,” UNP MP and Constitutional expert K.N. Choksy told Daily Mirror yesterday.
“This is principally why the UNP advocates continuing with the provincial councils with greater devolved power,” he said.
The UNP said the number of provincial councils should remain while the northern and eastern provinces be re-merged for a specific period.
“After that, a referendum should be held in the east to decide whether to continue with the re-merger or not. Devolution of power to PCs will be uniform. But, when a specific requirement in respect of a particular PC arises, there should be provisions to accommodate it. It shall also apply to the re-merged northern and eastern provinces,” he said. Referring to the SLFP proposal to establish a second chamber or a senate, the senior lawyer said many countries which are multi-ethnic and multi-religious had established upper chambers, normally giving greater weightage to the minority communities in composition.
The UNP also advocated the continuation of the executive presidency with modifications citing the executive presidential power could be an instrument for a rapid economic development if properly used.
“Former Presidents J.R.Jayewardene and R. Premadasa proved this. President Mahinda Rajapaksa has begun to do so. However, there should be important modifications such as requiring the President to consult the Prime Minister before dissolving Parliament and to make him subject to the laws of the country,” he said
Good New isn’t it.
13. Thennaali Iraaman | April 29th, 2007 at 3:52 am
Dear Mr. Jeyaraj
The current problem facing Sinhalese people in Sri Lanka is not about district councils or provincial councils. They are not concerned about Tamil people being given rights. Their problem is that they could not watch World cup final fully due to black out in Colombo because of tiger plane bombing. That is the honest truth.
14. Guna. N. Gunaratnam | April 29th, 2007 at 2:17 am
Dont be too sure about Singalese beeing ready to give autonomy to Tamil areas. Look at what Sunday Times political columnist has said about Mahinda chinthanai on devolution propposals to All party conference
Chairing the session was President Mahinda Rajapaksa. He was briefing CC members on proposals to end the ethnic conflict. His party’s proposals are due to be publicised on May 1. Though not armed with any official text, Rajapaksa took the participants through a process of spelling out the highlights and winning their endorsements on each one of them.
For example, CC members raised their hands in unison to say “yes” to do away with the existing Provincial Council system and replace it with District Councils. That would be the main unit of devolution. They also said “yes” to abolish the existing local bodies and replace them with Grama Rajyas. There would be a Senate of sorts as a second chamber or Upper House of Parliament, though not like the one that existed before the Republican Constitution of 1972.
Interesting enough, some of those who raised their hands were those who staunchly backed sweeping devolution proposals by then President Chandrika Bandaranaike Kumaratunga in 2000 drafted mainly by then Constitutional Affairs Minister G.L. Peiris, who is now back in an SLFP-led Government as a Minister. That was a time when then opposition United National Party (UNP) stoutly opposed it on the grounds that they went too far. They even burnt copies of these proposals in Parliament. At the time, even some SLFPers agreed that CBK had “gone overboard” with that set of Peiris proposals. The wheel of politics seems to be turning fast. Now, there are fears that the UNP may even pull out of the All Party Representative Committee (APRC) on the grounds that the proposals were “too little and too late.” But a significant point in the latest SLFP proposals is one thing which many politicians have periodically pledged and never carried out – the abolition of the Executive Presidency.
The UNP’s mood to distance itself from these proposals that are “less convincing” was apparent even before the SLFP had made them public. A Western diplomat and an Asian colleague had separate meetings with a group of UNPers. The Western diplomat disclosed that according to reports they have received, the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE) had made clear that any proposal that is “far short” of what has been declared before February 2002, the date of the Ceasefire Agreement, “would not be acceptable.” In such an event, the Western diplomat warned, the LTTE had made clear it would step up its military confrontations with the Security Forces. The Asian diplomat was harsher. He said the SLFP proposals, from the few accounts that have appeared in the media, were a “sham.” He opined that it would invite prompt rejection by the LTTE. Hence, instead of the resumption of peace talks, that would spell heightened war, he argued.
But President Rajapaksa is determined. He feels that the SLFP proposals, in their present form, could be easily carried through the South though the UNP may not favour it. Some senior Cabinet Ministers, however, were sceptical but were hesitant to go public with their reservations. Declared one of them; “Let us hope the proposals are tagged as ‘minimum on offer’, and not the maximum. That will provide greater leverage for further discussion. However, it must be left in the hands of capable parties to market it.” But SLFP sources insist that there will be no compromise in the broad structure that is being offered since the proposals have been formulated within the unitary character of Sri Lanka.
So we are going to get a kiraama sabai not regional autonomy.!!
15. Nanayakkara DGM | April 29th, 2007 at 4:01 am
How true about world cup. Our Sinhala people saying Mahinda should not have gone to West Indies to see world cup final when LTTE was attacking Colombo. It is like Nero playing fiffle when Rome was burning. They are also jealous that Mahinda was able to watch match but not them due to power cut.
16. Tissa | April 29th, 2007 at 4:04 am
Sri Lanka team was doing very well till final. Then what happened? Man whose horoscope is very bad went from Lanka there. Before match he went and met players and wished them. He was bad omen. He brought bad luck. Before big match you must look at lucky persons and get wishes. Now see what has happened. We lost. All because of one man.
17. Bala | April 29th, 2007 at 4:37 am
Tissa who was the man who brought bad luck to our cricket team?
18. Tissa | April 29th, 2007 at 4:49 am
Cant you guess? Its the man with the kurakkan shawl!
19. bala | April 29th, 2007 at 5:13 am
Oh Mahinda Rajapaksa!
But I thought he brings good luck. He has Seethevi face with bright smile always no?
And see the good luck he brought to 104 Mps who are ministers and deputy ministers. See the luck he brought to Karu, GL, Milinda, Rajitha and others. Mahinda brings good luck no? why should he bring bad luck to Mahela and Sanath and Murali and other team members?
20. Amalesh | April 29th, 2007 at 5:27 am
Of course Mahinda brings bad luck! He met thonda and chatted similing. Vadivel Suresh and Faizer Mushtapha crossed over from CWC. He chatted happily with Ranil and 18 UNP guys lef the party. He chatted smiling to Sripathy Soori. He is in jail. Mahinda worshipped Chandrika and see where she is now. He is bad luck
21. Bala | April 29th, 2007 at 6:19 am
Oh I see the blue sea!!
This is why Country is going to dogs now. Mahinda said he will bring honourable peace but see the damage and killings after he came
22. nanayakkara | April 29th, 2007 at 9:34 am
Yes Mahinda brings bad luck all right. I feel sorry for Pope Benedict. What will happen to him after seeing Mahinda as first visitor after new year. Prabakaran is smart. That is why he dont want to meet Mahinda in person and get bad luck
23. KK Nathan | April 29th, 2007 at 10:27 am
Dear Friends Nanayakkara, Bala, Tissa and Amalesh. The topic of article by Mr. DBSJ is serious and important. Can we please discuss that ? Can we stop this commenting like children playing the fool?Please!
24. Sumanasiri | April 29th, 2007 at 4:30 am
These kinds of comments about our President are not nice. It is not proper. Please do not insult our head of state with comments like this. Do you think this is correct?
25. Carlo Kovoor | April 29th, 2007 at 7:34 am
Kindly allow me to point out that comments about any individual bringing bad luck to anyone is totally irrational. I am amazed that people can be so superstitious even while trying to be humorous. As someone suggested it would be advisable for all readers to confine themselves to Mr. Jeyaraj’s essay and his proposal of an autonmous Eelam within united Sri Lanka. Let us not descend to puerile remarks!
26. True Patriot | April 29th, 2007 at 5:49 am
Claiming a seprate state (with 40% land and 60% coast) for 12% of the poulation is a very unreasonable, unrealistic and Shyloc type dream…Tamils are a very narrowminded, inward looking selfish community in this regard where Sinhalse are silly and forgive very easily for the enimy.
Discrimination in SL is not racial…It’s economical…Maharajah and Lalith Kothalawala are in the same boat while a farmer in Hambanthota and Mulaltive are on the same boat again…Of course there is a descriminaive feeling due to language barrier for both Tamils and Singhalse..This has to overcome. The delima created by selfish Tamil fractions and silly Sinhala frctons have created a ground wher Sinhala heritage in this land is highly vulnurable due to fasle propaganda by well oiled LTTE boot licking media machines….Also the cunning muslim extremism is waiting for the time to attach again the buddhist heritage in East….
Sinalese are the minority infront of Tamil and Muslim communities at golbal level. Its our heritage that is targetted by Western chritian fundamentalism with LTTE catspaw led by grade 3 school drop out with no ideology. Tamil intellectuals are forced to create idology for his destructive life in fear of their own lives….
Muslim fundamentalism is again targetting Sinahala heritage….It is we Singhalese that should start the libertaion fight…..
You narrow minded selfish community has neglected our hospitality, tolarance and peacefull lifestyly with Tamils in rest of the island….
By the way what ever forces are targetting us..seperate land for what ever the community is only lieing on the bodies of 17 million Sinhalese………..
27. Carlo Kovoor | April 29th, 2007 at 11:53 am
This is most irrational. If Country is so important for Sinhala people to live then what is the logic in all 17 million Sinhalese dying for it. If all Sinhala people die then who is there to live in Sri Lanka?
Irrational people like True patriot are the bane of Sri Lanka. They simply utter provocative nonsense without any logic or reason.
True Patriot you are not truely patriotic. Tou simply claim to be so.
28. Ran Che | April 29th, 2007 at 9:43 pm
Yal Elam, a state within a country. Well sais Jayaraj. However the Tamils can not ask for 40% of the total land with only 5% of the total population.
The tamils can move to VadaKuda – The jaffna Penisula and make it fertile and live happily. I am sure the hard working Tamils can do it within a matter of time.
However if a seperate state is given there will be unemployeement amount the Sinhalese and mahindha can not transfer their minds from poverty and starvation.
The war is divering the innocent mans way of thinking possitively to anger, heaterad and violance.
While the politetions are thriving the common man is suffering.
May be a few more air raids by the LITE will resolve it in time to come.
29. A canadian | April 29th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
If ?Autonomous? Quebec in Canada
can
inspire ?Eelam? within United Sri Lanka,
why do the tamils in Canada do not ask for a Tamil Autonomy within Canada?
30. Sunil | April 29th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Well done Jayaraj for provoking your Tamil brothers and sisters. Srilanka is a Sinhala Buddist Nation and can not be seperated.
You tamils live by adjusting to our (Sinhala) rules or perris in slow motion. There will not be any Tamils in another 20 years in Srilanka.
Nadarajah will be called Nanayakara
Prabakaran will be called Perera
muttukumaru wii change his name to Muttukumarana
31. Nithi | April 29th, 2007 at 11:42 pm
About eelam inside sri lanka. I remamber Douglas Devananda leader of EPDP had idea like that once. Then he wanted north and east to be one province called eelam and have full powers. but no seperation. One sri lanka.douglas had plan of having two tamil regiments in army with names Ellalan and Sangiliyan. Good ideas then. I dont know if he of same idea now. Because he is minster in mahinda govenment
32. Tamil Canadian | April 30th, 2007 at 10:07 am
This is a response to A Canadian. Its a pity that you have not understood Sri Lanka or Canada.
The Tamils in Sri Lanka demand separatism or autonomy on the basis of their inalienable right of self – determination. They have their own language, territory, culture and economy and also a historic consciousness. This is lacking in Canada.
The Tamils also had their own kingdom when the Portugese arrived. They lost their sovereignty on the battlefield to the Portugese. They did not cede their sovereignty shamelessly like Don Juan Dharmapala of Kotte.
Sovereignty over Tamils was transferred by Portugese to Dutch in 1658 and from Dutch to British in 1796. It was the British who unified the Country in 1832. Up to that time Jaffna was administered separately as Jaffna commandery. The British transferred Tamil sovereignty to the Sinhalese. It was not ceded on battlefield. Tamils do not accept Sinhala hegemony. If you have the guts to have a referendum on this the Tamils will prove that Sinhala sovereignty over them is illegal
This is why Tamils in Sri Lanka require autonomy. Tamils in Canada are not entitled. Besides we do not need it here in Canada. Do the Canadian troops bomb and shell our homes like the Sinhalese cowards in Sri Lanka?
33. A canadian | April 30th, 2007 at 11:06 am
May be the Tamil Canadian should wage the fight against the British for unifing the island called SriLanka.( as he recalls the history)
The GoSL seems to continue the status-quo acheived at the indepencence.
As I read the SriLankan affairs, it is the tamils mostly killed at hands of the SLA, LTTE and TMVP led Karuna.
What a price to pay and for what?
Just to hold on to the idea of Tamil autonomy?
As a canadian I understand why french canadians want to seperate. After all they were here before the British arrived.
And french canada is civilized now and has great leaders like Rene Leveque, Jacque Parrisau, Lucien Bouchard … those who do not seek the seperation over the siplled blood of french people or any other ethnic group.
Therefore no need for canadian gov to drop bombs to kill their own citizens.
We are doing it in Afganistan to liberate the afgans.
Tamils in and out of Canada must be civilised enough to see the resolution through peaceful means.
Otherwise, there will not be peace in Tamil Canadian’s life time.
34. pothey gura | April 30th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Sunil sahodaraya
It is due to racist ignorant people like you that our Tamil brothers and sisters want to separate from Sri Lanka. Before you talk about Sinhala buddhist unity try and get durawe, karawe , salagama, wahumpura, padu buddhist priests into Siam nikaya. Try and get Govi bhikkus in Amarapura nikaya.
You also talk of Tamils turning into Sinhalese. this is nothing new. The Karawe, Durawe and Salagama castes are originally tamils and Malayalees.
The Kandyan convention was signed by more people in Tamil than Sinhala. Even Ratwatte dissawe ancestor of Mrs. B signed in Tamil. JR Jayewardenes ancestor was Thambi mudali. SWRD ’s ancestor was Nilapperumal.
All sinhalese with names beginning in Illanga or ending in koon and kone are Tamils originally.
I can go on and on
Suni if you have the guts to publish your full name with your “ge” name in this site I will say 90 $ chances are you have Tamil ancestry.
Dont provoke Tamil people unnecessarily. Try living together as equals
35. Tamil Canadian | April 30th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
A Canadian,
It was you who came out with a stupid yet insultingly provocative remark about why Tamils are not asking for autonomy in Canada.
When I responded you find yourself at a loss for coherent argument so you change the subject to Canada. That is not the issue here.
Your conduct is more like that of those ignorant fascists masquerading as Sinhala patriots in Sri Lanka. Go home ! You are a misfit in Canada.
Anyway to pay you back in your own coin why dont you Sinhalese get a citizenship bill passed here in Canada to disenfranchise all Tamil voters?
Why dont you get Ottawa to declare Sinhala as official language here?
Why dont you get Buddhism declared as state religion here?
Why dont you get Government to sponsor Sinhalese people in areas where Tamils live in large numbers?
Why dont you get a law passed that Tamil students must get more marks than others to get into uiversity?
Why dont you organize mobs and burn Tamil houses and kill Tamils regularly?
If you do these things then Tamils will demand autonomy in Canada too?
36. Sunil | April 30th, 2007 at 11:02 pm
Empty Vessels make The Most Noise. Why are you shouting like mad men.SriLanka is a Sinhala Buddhist Nation. It is a land of the Sinhalese. You Tamils are only settlers. So keep to a corner and live a life to your self. Most of the taxes are paid by the Sinhalese as we are 90% of the population and so our children must be given preference. If you want your Tamil children to go to a University, set up a few in Eeelam and send them there.
You say that the low cast Tamils turned to Sinhalese. Well my boy you Tamils did not even treat your own Tamils from other casts well. You prevented them from entering temples and places of worship. You suppressed the poor and not wealthy. You lost the war with them and now you have no one to fight and so troubling the Sinhalese.
Arnt you ashamed to say that the oppressed Tamils became Sinhalese and are now above you and getting the vengeance. You Tamils are being treated badly by your own kind by what you are saying.
Sometime back Ran Che a Tamil in my belief said in another article that “THE WHEELS OF JUSTICE GRIND SLOWLY BUT STEADILY”
From what I see the Tamils can not take defeat and change their point of view from time to time.
YOU ARE NOT GETTING A SEPERATE STATE AND PREPARE AND LEARN TO ADJUST IN FUTURE.
37. Ran Che | April 30th, 2007 at 11:09 pm
I am in agreement with what pothey gura and Sunil says above.
Why did the Tamils change over as Sinhalese – it is because we Tamils supressed them at some time or other. If so we have slowly reduced in population and have reached 5% or more now.
I can now remember in the 1960’s Professor Sundaralingham appearing in the 1st page of Newspapers chasing away the oppressed.
We most Tamils live abroad and are treated as blacks or migrants by the whites. Yes it is Karma.
Someone should take the innitiative to get hold of the Sinhalese and become friendly and build the confidence.
WHO IS TO DO THIS
38. Suresh M | April 30th, 2007 at 11:10 pm
Hello A Canadian,
Please don’t bring back all the bad memories that my birth country, or Sinhala r駩mes to be accurate, brought upon us Tamils. I want to live in peace.
All other Sinhalese,
Most of you assume that democracy means majoritism. Pity isn?t it?
Currently, Tamil speaking population may be reduced to merely a 30% (12% Eelam Tamils), but that will not take away their right to self determination as a people. Also, it is not guaranteed to remain constant
39. Andrew K | May 1st, 2007 at 5:51 am
Dear Mr. Jeyaraj,
As a keen observer of Sri Lankan affairs I read your columns regularly and always find them food for thought. However, with regards to your column Can ?Autonomous? Quebec in Canada inspire ?Eelam? within United Sri Lanka? I think that for a change I must point out a couple of things.
For one, it is too simplistic to put the 1990 and 1992 constitutional debates in Canada down to a simple Anglo-French conflict. While the English and French are the two main European founding nations of Canada, that duo interacted with a large number of aboriginal or First Nations when they first came to what became Canada. This has often been ignored or glossed over by the mainly white European narrative of Canadian history that has prevailed up until now.
In 1990, what happened with Meech Lake was simply one part of a number of assertions by aboriginals of their rights as Canadian citizens in what became known as “Indian Summer” (check, for example, on the Oka Crisis in Quebec that summer for more). It was Elijah Harper, a Cree member of the Manitoba legislature who held up his Eagle feather during voting and voted against the Meech Lake Accord because it did not acknowledge aboriginal rights and tried to codify the myth that Canada only had two founding nations (analogous with the Australian myth that that land was terra nullius when Europeans arrived there). Since the Meech Lake Accord needed unanimous approval in all of Canada’s legislatures and the national parliament the accord was dead from that moment. Brian Mulroney’s government tried to blame the defeat of the accord on Newfoundland because it was too politically sensitive to acknowledge what Elijah Harper did in Manitoba, but the historical record clearly shows that that argument does not wash.
The Charlottetown Accord, two years later, was a process by which the government tried to assert the same myth of only two founding nations in Canada, amongst other problems with the document (but I think that it the most relevant analogy to Sri Lanka, viz. the Muslims there), and during the referendum campaign about the accord it and the traditional powers that be tried to frighten the Canadian people into voting for a highly flawed document. In the end, on October 26, 1992, 6 provinces including Quebec voted against the Accord. It was not simply down to the Anglos as you suggest.
Lastly, while on the surface the ADQ scenario makes an interesting case for Sri Lanka, the ADQ is also very neo-liberal. In recent Sri Lankan times the only party that has espoused anything remotely similar to the ADQ’s position was the recent UNP government. It can be, and has been, argued that it was the UNP’s neo-liberal policies, more so than its peace process or political suggestions for constitutional change, that undermined it in the 2 April 2004 parliamentary elections. In other words, while the ADQ may yet prove its ability to thrive in Quebec, it could just as easily founder on the rocks of neo-liberalism as the inherent contradictions of its polices have to be played out now amidst the brute realities of being the official opposition in the Quebec legislature. Personally, I predict that the ADQ will boom and bust like the List Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands or the Reform Party in Canada. Politics globally is in a state of flux and the ADQ is another manifestation of that. The PQ are far from dead yet. Watch this space.
40. A humble canadian | May 1st, 2007 at 9:55 am
The Anonymous has summerised Canadian attempts to ignore the rights of ALL the Canadians. I mean canadians of all ethnic backgrounds.
As canadians we must not ignore the rights of the first nations.
Same should apply in SriLanka.
Only the ignorants will see tamils and sinhalese as srilankans and create distinguish status.
Now that V.P. s eelam is a pipe dream these various ideas are being proposed by the losers.
A peaceful solutin is the only way to go.
41. True Patriot | May 1st, 2007 at 1:02 pm
The so called intellectual Tamils and diasapora forget one ground reality when they argue on their dream land…
There is no tax and other governmental income for GoSL coming form that teratory held byforce by the grade 3 school drpo out. Their so-called defacto state is a “mobile state” which they take with them when running (or so called tactical withdrawal) infront of SLA advances.
Majority Sinahesle pay taxes and bear the expences including the cost of feeding “untaxable” community in uncleared areas…All their basic needs (with shortcomings) are covered with the money of Sinhalese. Meantime Sinhalese bear the cost of defence and also to bear losses caused by LTTE (fuel tanks etc.). But the Tamil daisapora and LTTE use or unethical ways of pumping money for their seperatist machine……
This is just a “MINOR EXAMPLE” to show that IT IS THE SINHALESE THAT ARE DISCRIMINATED…..LTTE boot lickers try to create a history for Tamls while destroying all the Sinahala Buddhist heritage in North and East….
This is a problen of economicla factors fueled by the “Aragonance”, “Selfisheness”, “Narrow Thinking” and “Inward looking approcah” of the Tamail community.
Sinhala Buddhists have been showing their hospitality for all which has been the Boomarang of their own wisdom……
What ever the Barking Dogs (so called intellectuals of diasapora) dictate……You will only find peace for you in Sri Lanka only if you accept the Sinhala- Buddhist Heritae which is the inherent identity of this precious land….Your ansestors from your homeland (South India) tried to destroy it several times in the historay and so did your masters white – westerners……..But still it is there…….
We Will Protect You at Any Cost…Mother Lanka….Like in all critical moments in the history Patriot Southerners are in the arena again….
42. dias | May 1st, 2007 at 2:57 pm
What is needed is symmetric devolution under a federal-like model. Symmeticity should not be based on ethnic or religious criteria, rather, neutral criteria such as geography and importantly, on future economic potentiality. What the architects should be focused on are not so much on present conditions, rather the optimum model when the nation is at peace and reached its economic critical mass, perhaps in about 20 years.
A dual-Federal model along ethnic lines, as suggested by Jeyaraj, will only lead to more strife and polarization.
43. Pothey gura | May 1st, 2007 at 3:47 pm
Sunil
How well you describe yourself by saying empty vessels make most sound.
You say Tamils are settlers and this is a Sinhala Buddhist nation. What an ignoramus you are!
So Vijaya banished by his father Sinhabahu did not settle here? He did not cohabit with Kuveni? He did not marry Pandyan Tamil princess from Madurai?
There were five Eeshwarams (Koneswaram, Thirukketheswaram, Muneeswaram. Thandeeswaram and Naguleswaram) hre when Vijaya landed says Sir Paul Peiris the historian
Sinhala Buddhist? What was Devanambia tissa till he met Arahat Mahinda?
Please answer this question on caste in Sinhala community.
Can Salagama, Durawe, Karawe, Wahumpura and Padu people become Bhikkus of Siam nikaya?
Do you have courage to truthfully state your full name with Ge name? I am sure your Tamil ancestry will be proved then
44. David Blacker | May 2nd, 2007 at 1:33 am
Since so many of the Tamils who have commented here (and I assume most of you live outside SL) seem think an autonomous Eelam province within a united SL is a good idea (and I think so too in principle), is there no way you can press the LTTE to move towards this? In SL many people are pushing for a federal system (but it might take time and a change of govt first), and the Tamils need to push Prabha for an option other than eternal war.
It is obvious that the LTTE cannot win militarily (and the pinprick airraids doesn’t change that), so what is the future for the NE Tamils? You in the diaspora who contribute to LTTE funds have the ability to pressure the LTTE.
45. k.arvind | May 2nd, 2007 at 1:24 pm
Whereas David Blacker and a few others speak seriously and call for workable suggestions, many others – both Sinhalese and Tamils – are merely giving vent to their atavastic feelings, which will help nobody in the dispute.
My recollection is the LTTE will settle for “Maximum Devolution” that is being bandied about short of Eelam. But, pray, do spell out what this maxdev is to make any discussion meaningful. LTTE have announced this several times ad nauseum but the Govt, by design one is left to presume, choses to ignore this. It is good the British are taking the initiative presently and this line of thought, must be pursued in earnest. We must show courtesy, gratitude and decency to the Norwegians, who I think, have tried to help us out sincerely. WE must not allow room to be called an ungrateful nation, though we have many amongst us fitting this description.
I believe there is still sufficient space for both sides to hammer out a workable solution, if not immediately but gradually.
Let us be reasonable and concede Ranil Wickramasinghe, inspite of all the flak against him by the JHU/JVP, gave us a peaceful country, economic recovery and a sense of confidence in the future within the 2-1/2yrs he ruled. Mahinda Rajapakse may have meant well in his Chintanaya to promise peace in 3 months but he has proven he does not have the managerial skill or the team to usher in peace. The many contradictory actors he took on board his bandwagon are working in cross purposes (look at what the JVP is doing) and he has lost direction and the confidence of the people. Which will destroy the country first – the conflict or the skyrocketing Cost of Living appears to be the question in everyone’s mind? As for MR he is quite happy flying to Rome and watching Cricket in Barbados – as if everything is ticketyboo in the resplendent island.
46. DanOfHell | June 4th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
Thats cool indeed
I hope you’ll be able to proceed
47. Stevie Womack | February 12th, 2008 at 7:24 am
Hi guys
I am in the process of looking to get my wife a valentines day present and I have seen some nice used cars on Netcars and the prices seem quite reasonable. I have looked on their siet and it appaers that they hae a wide range of cars for sale Fords, Vauxhalls, Renaults and Volvos.
Has anyone used this website and do you recommend their loan service when buying car?
thanks a lot or your help
Leave a Comment
Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed