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.
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.
Alberta voting to leave at all will turn Alberta into the next Crimea.
Do you seriously think “energy crisis” Trump will sit by when Canada’s oil powerhouse votes to leave, even by a slim amount?
He will have boots on the ground to “protect the will of the people” and secure our oil.
It’ll wreck our country and further drive his 51st state stuff.
The will of the people is the will of the people. Start imposing a super majority on things and watch as nothing gets done anymore.
This is a pretty naive vision of democracy, if I invite 4 friends over and 3 of them want to order shit instead of pizza, we're not eating shit.
Democracy isn't some magical decree from God that is a law of nature, people must consent to being governed.
Well in politics that's exactly how it works, the majority elects the far right, everyone has to eat shit.
And that's what leads to instability and ultimately the collapse of that government. The reality of the situation is that a narrow referendum to leave Canada will be met with incredible resistance and it's not going to happen.
A supermajority would be harder to resist both internally and externally. That's the point.
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.
Sometimes things getting done is a good thing.
Why does 50%+1 represent the will of the people?
Because that's exactly how democracy works, 50% +1 means a majority of the people want something, the rest had their chance to convince them otherwise, they can organize another vote later on to see if it's still the will of the people to do that thing at that point.
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?
And who has the authority to decide what requires it and what doesn't? And how do you guarantee it's not abused?
Federal: "You need a simple majority to gain your independence" thinking the vote won't come close and using fraud to help the no side
Quebec: 0.59% away from a yes vote
Federal: "Oh shit! Clarity act!"
If another referendum happens and they determine it's 60% to win and it comes close they'll just move it to 65% the next time then 70% and so on. Just ripe for abuse!
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.
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 would end up becoming a US state, going from richest in Canada to middle of the pack in the US.
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).
They also need to pull their head out of their ass and stop acting like just because they collect taxes from the oil industry then can connect less taxes from their citizens. Their oil fund is worth peanuts while Norway was inspired by them and created a fund that is now worth close to 2 trillion. They can take 3% from it every year, which is more than Alberta's annual operating expenses. They built that fund while extracting less oil than Alberta and while sitting on a much smaller reserve. Alberta's fund could be worth two or three times as much of they had managed it the way Norway did.
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!
Alberta 2025 = Crimea 2013
I'd be extremely skeptical of people saying they wouldn't leave.
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.
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Hockey
Football (NFL): incomplete
Football (CFL): incomplete
Baseball
Basketball
Soccer
💻 Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
