This, especially this. Whatever happened to that petition that surpassed its goal anyway?
Oh, right. Danielle Smith didn’t like it, so she’s ignoring that it ever occurred.
Somebody should explain that to that separatist fellow who keeps posting. He’s consumed mega MAGA amounts of orange Koolaid.
Exactement! As the French would say.
It’s being handwaved away so hard, my cat blew off the balcony.
Poor kitty!
(Seriously, I hope that your cat is safe.)
A ‘nation’ in Canada is used for Quebec or indigenous. It is ambiguous. ‘State’ is the legal term for a sovereign entity under international law. ‘Country’ is just common language.
Who are you asking this of? I’m not responsible for any petition I didn’t initiate.
But answer this. Say the petition’s terminology is used as a referendum, what happens after? What happens if it is ambiguous? As in it passes/fails with only a small number of people participating? What happens if it fails with a significant majority saying ‘No’?
- If it passed in the referendum, then the status quo is maintained. But it can not prevent another referendum asking the question to leave.
- Indeterminate
- Nothing as it is not a clear question on independence.
So, Smith would be just wasting money on running a referendum that accomplishes nothing. In other words, quoting Euphonious_Polemic, “is just redundant”.
Moderating:
You need to make your argument without insulting other posters. This is not the Pit. Don’t do this again.
Noted left wing rabble rouser Jason Kenney thinks that even the threat of separation will reduce investment in Alberta.
Kenney: “A pipeline is a multiyear project, highly complex, involving tens of billions in capital spending,” he said. “Who would want to greenlight something like that in the middle of a huge family feud?”
Kenney knows better and knows what actually shuts down investment in Alberta. C48 and C69. Then he held a referendum on equalization payments that he essentially ignored. Also on the same vote were the Senate candidates. 3 conservatives won. Everyone in this thread thinks Carney is right in consulting all sorts of people on pipelines essentially devolving his veto power to them. Will he like Trudeau ignore the will of Albertans when it comes to the senate the next time a Senator needs appointing?
Major political uncertainty is always bad for investment anywhere.
Much of US business investment is on hold now awaiting some sign the craziness in DC is abating.
Which means the administration’s policy volatility is the major inhibiting factor preventing the growth of traditional manufacturing hezvy jobs they claim to want to foster.
Nothing surprising at all that as separatism seems to be gaining momentum in Alberta, everything else grinds to a halt.
It also did when Quebec was all hot to leave back in the 70s & again in the 90s.
This article is helpful. As Alberta separatists court the U.S., prosperity is fuelling a sovereigntist turn
Except what he said is obviously true.
Yes. I thought this was particularly on-point:
Sovereigntists who blame Ottawa and equalization for every shortfall ignore the role of provincial policy in creating the ongoing boom-and-bust cycle in Alberta.
They go on about the foolishness of ignoring economic reality and what the future holds. And it’s not climate change denialism:
(The Sovereigntists) presents the climate transition as an illegitimate imposition rather than a predictable structural shift that responsible governments could have prepared for. …
Alberta’s sovereigntist discontent is a three-way collision: long‑cultivated politics of grievance against Ottawa; a self‑inflicted fiscal and social vulnerability rooted in decisions made during boom years; and a global energy transition that threatens a deeply embedded regional identity.
And the longstanding ties of provincial politicians to the oil industry warped provincial politics and shut down real debate over policy and priorities. Of course politicians often play only the short game, but extractive industries wreak such havoc that they need to be managed with a longer, inclusive, public view.
Oh, I’m guessing that doesn’t include a veto for Albertans, correct? Consultation even?
“long‑cultivated politics of grievance against Ottawa;”
Aided and abetted by the oil industry which wants unfettered access to the resource, no accountability for short and long term environmental destruction, low taxation, and costs of the industry, from clean-up to pipelines, paid for by the public.
Of course this is not limited to Alberta and oil, but Alberta is the case we keep returning to here and it’s not like the Alberta first folks are calling for a green agenda, democratic socialism, or the end of capitalism and the nation-state.
I’ve tried to parse this a couple of times. I’m not sure what your saying?
Only that the Alberta first movement is an astroturf movement, not a grassroots movement that is about stripping public resources and funnelling profits to a small clique of oil companies with no regard for the people of Alberta. It is not about democratic participation, sustainable development, or any of the other challenges we face. Much has been spent to cultivate politicians and public sentiment but at its root it is a narrow agenda for the oil industry.
They are literally holding an Alberta separation petition drive… IN THE USA! ha!
Couldn’t find enough people? I know a place where they can rally. Alberta! Plenty of people there