the clarity act that follows exists strictly within the fantasy reality of the canadian constitutional framework. it has no relevance in the realpolitik of international law, and will not be taken seriously by a real secessionist movement.

the reference case explicitly separates between a constitutional framework that is not reality but only exists in the ivory towers of the federal government, and actual reality on the ground in quebec. 

- can quebec secede unilaterally? that isn't a legal question, it's a political and a military question. can they or can they not?

- if they can, it means canada cannot stop them besides through a war of attrition, which is in contravention of international law and should be avoided. canada should seek to align the constitutional fantasy reality with the actual reality on the ground via negotiation.

- if they cannot secede unilaterally, canada can enforce it's constitution, which has rules for secession that make it virtually impossible, but this is a time wasting mechanism. if they could secede, they would do so unilaterally.

read the case yourself. it's well written.

this is completely incorrect. it is not what the reference case says at all.

what the reference case says is that quebec can unilaterally secede if it can force the reality through. the case reduces the issue to what kind of reality quebec can actually enforce on the ground. if quebec can force secession unilaterally, it is a legal process under international law and canada would be breaking international law by trying to prevent secession with the use of violence or force. it further follows that the clarity act is not consistent with international law and that canada would face immense scrutiny from democratic global bodies if it tried to prevent secession, much as ukraine has faced immense scrutiny for preventing secession with the use of extreme violence, forced conscription, etc. ukraine is one of the most unfree countries in the world; it's one of the most corrupt societies on the planet. canada should not be looking at ukraine as anything except a failed state to learn from and avoid making the same mistakes as. ukraine has done everything wrong for decades and is the worst example imaginable to follow.

canada would rightfully face crippling international sanctions if it sought to block a democracy movement in quebec or alberta. i would sanction and boycott my own government in an attempt to topple it, to allow for democracy to triumph. democracy is paramount; nationalism is barbaric and stupid. my solidarity is strictly and solely with the rights of self-determination of peoples, not with some stupid colonial country that shouldn't exist in the first place.

the case concludes by explaining that despite the fact that it is up to the secessionists to make secession a real fact on the ground in order to legitimize it, which means through generating support and through organizing militias and other defence forces, and the fact that canada would be breaking international law if it tried to prevent secession by force, canada may still seek to negotiate, as a face-saving mechanism. the case lays out a process by which secession can happen peacefully, if it looks like it's going to happen violently, anyways.

but the rights of self-determination are not determined by the federal government, and the federal government will rightfully find itself toppled over and burned down if it tries to decide that it is. no government can tell a people that they can or cannot secede and any that tries to should cease to exist through the use of force.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/can-a-province-seperate-from-canada-9.7209415