▁position ▁that ▁a ▁simple ▁majority ▁was ▁sufficient ▁to ▁declare ▁independence , ▁as ▁he ▁believed ▁the ▁question ▁was ▁too ▁vague ▁and ▁gave ▁negoti ators ▁too ▁broad ▁a ▁mand ate ▁given ▁the ▁enorm ity ▁of ▁the ▁issue ▁and ▁the ▁uncertainty ▁of ▁negoti ations . ▁ ▁Jean ▁Chr ét ien ▁refused ▁to ▁public ly ▁comment ▁or ▁consider ▁cont ingen cies ▁regarding ▁a ▁possible ▁" Yes " ▁victory , ▁and ▁at ▁no ▁point ▁stated ▁the ▁refer endum ▁bound ▁the ▁Federal ▁government ▁to ▁negoti ations ▁or ▁permitted ▁a ▁un il ater al ▁declaration ▁of ▁independence . ▁His ▁word ing ▁of ▁speech es ▁during ▁the ▁refer endum ▁noted ▁that ▁Par ize au ▁would ▁interpret ▁a ▁" Yes " ▁vote ▁as ▁a ▁mand ate ▁to ▁separate ▁Quebec ▁from ▁Canada , ▁but ▁never ▁offered ▁recognition ▁that ▁this ▁was ▁legal ▁or ▁recogn izable . ▁A ▁speech ▁draft ed ▁for ▁Chr ét ien ▁in ▁the ▁event ▁of ▁a ▁" Yes " ▁vote ▁stated ▁that ▁the ▁question ▁was ▁too ▁ambigu ous ▁to ▁be ▁binding ▁and ▁that ▁only ▁diss atisf action ▁with ▁the ▁status ▁qu o ▁had ▁been ▁stated . ▁ ▁Reform ▁party ▁leader ▁Pr eston ▁Mann ing , ▁a ▁prominent ▁pro ponent ▁of ▁direct ▁dem ocracy , ▁would ▁have ▁recognized ▁any ▁result , ▁with ▁critics ▁suspect ing ▁he ▁preferred ▁a ▁" Yes " ▁vote ▁for ▁elect oral ▁gain . ▁Jean ▁Char est ▁recognized ▁the ▁refer endum ' s ▁legit im acy , ▁although ▁a ▁draft ▁post - refer endum ▁speech ▁had ▁him ▁interpre ting ▁a ▁" Yes " ▁vote ▁as ▁a ▁call ▁for ▁dr