Is this populism? Is this Trumpism? Instead of running the province well and communicating that to the electorate, you make up the idea of a referendum on an asinine idea and then market it as “listening to the people.” Irresponsible and effortless
People aren’t too bright 'round these parts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_to_Unfreedom has an interesting take on the wave of separatist movements. It traces it to a reactionary “politics of eternity”, which is being supported and advanced by authoritarian regimes to undermine the established order based on trade democratic deliberation. See, e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_interference_in_the_2016_Brexit_referendum
Now that X and Meta have become dedicated propaganda platforms, and I don’t know that it’s even possible for the government or researchers to get the needed access to determine if there are bad actors manipulating the public in this way now.
From Snyders view, one of the aims of this global effort is to convince people that coordination via democratic deliberation doesn’t work. Proposing ridiculous, highly polarizing referendums and tricking as many people as possible into voting for the most absurd option is a great way to convince everyone that democratic process are stupid, since that is the most degenerate form of democratic activity.
That’s pretty chilling to hear. But great info, thanks for sharing!
“Here’s how the play is likely to unfold in the weeks and months ahead: Carney will be elected Prime Minister on April 28 by a comfortable margin; [Alberta Premier Danielle] Smith will trigger a constitutional crisis, providing cover for Carney to strike a grand bargain that finally resolves longstanding tensions between the provinces and Ottawa; and large infrastructure permitting reform will fall into place. Protests against these developments will be surprisingly muted, and those who do take to the streets will be largely ignored by the media. The entire effort will be wrapped in a thicket of patriotism, with Trump portrayed as a threat even greater than climate change itself. References to carbon emissions will slowly fade…
In parallel, we expect Trump and Carney to swiftly strike a favorable deal on tariffs, padding the latter’s bona fides just as his political capital will be most needed.”
Heres one theory. A separation crisis allows us to displace Russian oil globally and drop energy prices, which is why Trump gave manufacturing a 250% greater tariff than oil and gas, which caused other provinces to vote for Carney en mass since they thought Pierre would side with Alberta and not do reciprocal tariffs to protect manufacturing.
Alberta takes a large hit on its energy exports to the US since it is land locked. Opening up LNG from BC and Alberta to the coast allows it to derive revenue on the global market, which should help when oil prices fall globally due to Trumps actions. The Canadian dollar tracks crude oil prices, so if we dont open up alternative export markets we will be taking a series of hefty haircut, as the US also devalues their dollar to increase domestic production.
deleted by creator
It would lose oil value by joining US. Only 1 customer becomes permanent. The pipeline to west coast would face higher transit fees.
What it needs to do is start its version of the Bloc or actually start swinging from party to party. The Liberals have nothing to gain there (although it didn’t keep them from spending billions on a pipeline for Alberta, guess that’s what they mean by the Liberals not caring) and the Conservatives don’t need to make any effort to gain Alberta anyway (so they end up treating them worse than the Liberals even though Albertans don’t realize it).
I said the exact same thing some time ago!
Whatever happens, it should require a supermajority to leave. Say 50.1% of the population vote to leave so it’s on, then some people change their minds or some people die while others turn 18, then it’s 49.9% who want independence so it’s off. I don’t know if 55% is enough, or 60%, or 67%. But, it should be enough that whatever decision is made, it’s not going to immediately become unpopular.
As the indigenous peoples of the prairies have already pointed out, by treaty, the provinces don’t own the lands they’re governing. The people can leave.
They don’t get to take anything with them.
the provinces don’t own the lands they’re governing
You think they wrote this to clap back at Ms Smith.
No. They can just leave.
They can’t have the land; so they can vote all they like but it’s the plane ticket that makes the difference.
deleted by creator
Say 50.1% of the population vote to leave so it’s on, then some people change their minds or some people die while others turn 18, then it’s 49.9% who want independence so it’s off.
Thats exactly how it went with Brexit, except that they still went through with it.
Yeah, and that’s why it should be a cautionary tale for all other hugely important referendums.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
That platitude does not convince me of anything. Some things should obviously require a super majority, or require additional process beyond voting, or not be subject to a vote ad all.
Majoritarian rule is not the end all be all of a functioning democracy.
deleted by creator
The limits are decided as the society and its government are formed and as they develop. Just as you note, look at the process for amending the constitution or the fact that you can’t vote in unconstitutional laws.
It just a basic fact about well functioning democratic systems that you have limits to majoritarian rule.
There is a lot more to democracy than winners taking all in bare majority votes. There is absolutely nothing wrong with requiring super majorities for some process, or requiring consensus in some cases, in having some things decided by experts instead of by vote, or by using deliberation with no voting in some cases.
The important part of democratic governance is that we work together to develop and maintain well reasoned and functional systems that are stable and responsible to our changing needs, based on engagement and deliberation of the citizenry. Winner take all bare majoritarian voting is the least of it, honestly.
Edit: it’s helpful imo to skim https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy to get a sense of how varied and expansive democratic governance is.
deleted by creator
I am not a constitutional lawyer (or any sort of lawyer), but my understanding (and what I meant to say) was that unconstitutional laws are subject to legal correction, so sure , we may vote in whatever we want, but that doesn’t meant the law will stand or take effect.
See e.g., http://www.revparl.ca/english/issue.asp
The reason we in Canada nowadays use the term referendum to mean mainly the non-binding type is because at the beginning of the century the western provinces experimented with the binding referendum. But it was abandoned because the Manitoba law on the subject was declared unconstitutional in 1919, mainly on the ground that it usurped the power of the lieutenant-governor, as a representative of the crown, to veto legislation. It also interfered with the powers of the federal government, which appoints the lieutenant-governors and has the power to instruct them
deleted by creator
Sometimes things getting done is a good thing.
Why does 50%+1 represent the will of the people?
deleted by creator
That’s how some democracy sometimes works. Sometimes supermajorities are required in democracies. Who cares about what the majority wants? Why should that be the only thing that counts?
deleted by creator
That’s like the entire point of the Clarity Act. You need to have the feds agree on the question and threshold for a leave vote to be valid and binding.
Alberta 2025 = Crimea 2013
I’d be extremely skeptical of people saying they wouldn’t leave.
Some people are of the thought of “do it now and get it over with so we can see it fail and move on”.
Nenshi (head of the Alberta NDP) has literally said he wants the vote to happen today so that we can get this out of the way, stop playing political games once the vote fails, and move on to getting stuff that actually matters done.
Isn’t that exactly how brexit happened?
Wish I followed Brexit more as it was happening, think me being in school at the time had something to do with me not doing so.
However at the same time, I don’t think the majority of people would vote for this. IIrc, support is polling between 20 and 30 percent currently, much higher than I’m comfortable with, but not enough to actually win a vote if it was held today (not to say polls vote btw).
Also worth noting is that last week Smith and Carney had a meeting, to which Smith stated that it was a positive one, so fingers crossed that’s a sign of things in the right direction: https://www.ctvnews.ca/edmonton/article/smith-describes-first-meeting-with-carney-after-the-election-positive/
deleted by creator
That may be helpful in curtailment of efforts to persuade fence-sitters.
That’s the thing too, people that are pro-separatism are already on the roll with their efforts to make this a legitimate thing. Just the other day I received a call from the Alberta Republicans with a survey asking if I’d vote yes on a referendum to split from Canada.
Yes. I’ve seen it in the US and hence my trepidation for Canada.
deleted by creator
Which is why they lowered that number.
Most people in Alberta are Canadians through and through, whatever blowhards like Smith want to think.
The sooner she fucks off down to a plush energy company board seat in the States, the better we’ll all be.
What does “leave” mean in this context? A vote to leave?
Yes. Sometimes people hide unpopular opinions, until they’re popular.
Sometimes people hold unpopular opinions privately until they’re examined under the spotlight. Then they realize that’s not actually their opinion. See: Brexit.
You think 100% of Albertans and Saskatchewanians want to split from Canada?
Yves-François Blanchet said it best: oil and gas is not an identity.
Albertans who hate Canada should simply move to the US or Russia.
Big pipeline projects require a guaranteed climate terrorist future with world subjugated to dead ender energy for 40 years. Oil use, other than for war, is significantly down in last 2 years. EVs are making a big dent in China and Europe, and South. Desperation to steal public funds to subsidize oil industry was part of funding for Trump’s victory, as a last gasp for industry profit protection.
If Alberta wants to pay for a pipeline east, rest of Canada can be nice about it. Smartest move would be expanded railways through Ontario and Quebec that go a bit norther than existing routes so that more cargo volume can pass through Canada, and be remote enough that accidents don’t kill too many. In a greener future, population around those rail corridors can increase, even as oil use dies off completely, or sufficiently to not have large export markets, that makes oil only infrastructure a bad investment. But even if using existing railways/trucks causes more deaths from accidents, it’s still the smartest/least economic risky path.
Absolutely not under any circumstances, should Federal government submit to Alberta referendum extortion as a reason to invest 1 red cent into Alberta. I’d rather see export tariffs on Alberta oil, with 50% of the revenue set aside to repay Alberta after they set a path towards Canadian unity. I’d rather see very aggressive demands on secessionist movements to allow subregions to vote to either become independent city states or Canadian associated regions.
It’s also categorically absurd to mass infrastructure spend on FF export potential to Europe from Alberta. Not only are they weaning off dead ender climate terrorist energy, but they have ample supply capacity from nearby abundant sources. Temporary geopolitical sympathies is no basis for Canada to fund stupidity. If Europe wants to help Alberta cofund something, I’m ok with Canada helping provinces along the way approve permits, but the inherent stupidity should not impact other Canadians.
Ontario and Quebec (and prairies) energy is cheaper with tariff free Chinese help. Solar in Ontario and Quebec would now be cheaper than in Arizona despite much less sun with lower financing costs and cheaper inputs. Chinese battery supplies and factories can both make Canadian EV production competitive, and enhance electricity resilience affordably. Canadian trade of oil for solar equipment helps both Alberta and Canadians achieve desired energy policy/benefits without any stupidity.
