[FieryVulpine]

Unfortunately, the ever-incompetent Notley failed and focused too much on largely-irrelevant social issues. I recently saw her on Power Play and thought that I should pat her on the head, shush her, and tell her the adults are talking. If she believe that people like the blubbering man-toddler who calls himself John Horgan or those eastern bumpkins Trudeau and Legault can he reasoned with like adult, then she has to be the dumbest person in the province.

[Thanos]

Notley merely followed up on Obama's mistake - sometimes the enemy is so rancid that it becomes utterly pointless, and self-destructive, attempting to be decent to them. As with Obama vs the GOP, so too with Notley vs Trudeau, Horgan, Coderre, and the enviro-whackos.

[BartSimpson]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

And here you see the wisdom of the electoral college system that prevents a tyranny of the majority.

The "Wisdom" of winning without the popular vote.

One more fucking time: We elect Presidents on a state-by-state basis to prevent the country from being ruled by the votes of as few as five states. This serves the purpose of helping to prevent EXACTLY THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE WITH SECESSION.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The FN will get to vote like anyone else and if Alberta/Sask votes (say) 65% to leave then if the FN oppose the action they'll have to pound sand. It simply won't be Ottawa's decision to stop sovereignty...especially if Alberta/Sask apply for and receive US statehood.

Reserves are Federal Territory, Provinces have no say over them. Also, BC is something like 110% unceded FN territory, so even if they voted to leave the FNs can say "Hold on a sec..."

The reserves within the provinces will become the federal territory of the sovereign provinces and while it might be part of a separation discussion it won't be a sticking point simply because most of your voters would be just peachy with the FN being someone else's problem and you know that's true.

That's why we don't want Quebec. We're quite happy with it being your problem and not ours.

[JaredMilne]

Thanos Thanos:

Why would you think that being independent of Canada means that a new western state wouldn't join those organizations and agreements? Why are you assuming that independence means xenophobia and hostility?

Offer the current members of the armed forces citizenship, fighter jets that aren't held together with duct tape & prayers, and more than two-dozen rounds of ammunition per year to shoot off in training and I'd bet most of them would flood to the western state. Ditto too with the RCMP members as well. Don't underestimate how compelling the idea of a fresh start can be, not to mention the appeal of some real freedom as opposed to being nit-picked to death by Big Sister and her servile pajama-boy servants in the left-wing political parties.

Bernier is generally a drooling imbecile, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Nearly 25 years ago, when Quebec seemed to be about to separate, a lot of people in the ROC advocated playing hardball with Quebec on separation negotiations, which would include everything from the use of the Canadian dollar right up to partitioning off parts of the province that chose to stay in Canada.

What makes you think the ROC would want Ottawa to go any easier on us, particularly when we pretty much have zero ability to force the ROC to build a pipeline? The UN Convention on the Law of the Sea would be useless.

Even this guy, who's a staunch Calgary right-wing conservative notes just how murky things could be in all kinds of areas.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The FN will get to vote like anyone else and if Alberta/Sask votes (say) 65% to leave then if the FN oppose the action they'll have to pound sand. It simply won't be Ottawa's decision to stop sovereignty...especially if Alberta/Sask apply for and receive US statehood.

Reserves are Federal Territory, Provinces have no say over them. Also, BC is something like 110% unceded FN territory, so even if they voted to leave the FNs can say "Hold on a sec..."[/quote]

That's not how the Treaties work. They're signed with the British and Canadian Crown, not with whatever state entity a separate Alberta and/or Saskatchewan would form. That could open the door to partition, as could any part of the newly independent states that votes overwhelmingly to stay part of Canada.

The conservative blogger I linked to above mentioned that the Treaty issue is the one that could most easily lead to outside intervention, and that could lead to all sorts of headaches.

Thanos Thanos:

I respect that opinion. When push comes to shove though I can't let someone else's sentimentality or misplaced nostalgia affect my decision. Not when so many things have gone wrong and there are so few offering any ideas or ways to make things better. Second-class status based on something as ridiculous as geographic location is absolutely unacceptable, especially when it's the "lessers" out in the hinterland that are providing the funds for those in the "more important" areas to live their lifestyle.

I respect your view too-not least because you're a hell of a lot smarter and more nuanced than yo-yos like Doug Christie, and otherwise stay far away from the evangelical fundies. And you're touching on a bigger problem, one that's existed since Confederation-the whole business of so much of federal policy designed to benefit what David Kilgour called 'Inner Canada', with 'Outer Canada' being treated as a secondary concern, if at all.

Things like that are why I'd be up for a redesigned Senate, a revised equalization formula, and a mixed-member parliamentary election system, among other things. First Past The Post is full of problems ranging from allowing regional parties to get a disproportionate amount of power, leaving entire regions shut out of national decision-making to exaggerating the differences between regions of Canada.

As I've said before, one of the great things about CKA is how we can have often-respectful debates like these and still be respectful towards one another in the process.

[Thanos]

Don't see much point in trying all over again the ideas that got Preston Manning laughed out of the house. I've never been one for whistling past the graveyard when it comes to things that won't even get a fair chance to be heard, much less ever voted on. Every single one of those ideas is DOA with Quebec's veto hanging over this country's constitutional process. And not just Quebec either, because there's no way that Ontario would ever allow any sharing of real power. Or the Lower Mainland of BC. It's a non-starter and therefore not worth trying again.

Accept the system as it is, with a permanent place of inferiority, or leave. There are no other choices. And there never were other choices to begin with, from 1867 all the way through to today and on into the foreseeable future. Same as it ever was.

[Martin15]

Thanos Thanos:

I certainly won't be expecting huge crowds of Torontonians or Vancouverites to descend en masse at the Alberta legislature in Edmonton or in downtown Calgary carrying a giant Canadian flag imploring us to "please stay!" the way they did in Montreal in 1995.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

And it's a 40+ hour drive from Toronto to Edmonton. Toronto to Montreal can be done in a day.

There were free flights. And never underestimate "money and the ethnic vote".

[Martin15]

Thanos Thanos:

Provide me with a reason to believe that staying in Canada is in my own best personal interest. I'm trying hard but I just can't see it on my own anymore.

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

National police force. National Armed Forces. A seat the WTO. A seat at the UN. National Health care. Trade agreements with many parties around the world.

All of these things are achievable through an independent Alberta. But how much redundancy will be caused, for things we already have? Try selling Soy, Canola, pork, and beef to China without the WTO.

Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
WTO UN would be pretty much automatic
Health Care is a provincial responsibility.
Oh yes yes, because small countries like Switzerland have nothing but trouble.

[Martin15]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

$1:

Where Milne and Mohamed are scared at the conversations around Wexit, Eric Weiss, a former member of the Canadian military, living in Red Deer, Alta., says he is embarrassed.

Hmm fear mongering, playing the race card, and 30 year old irrelevant statements.
This crap was all sorted out before 1995.

Of course some military would go and some would stay.
An independent Alberta would have no need for any military at all.

[Martin15]

Thanos Thanos:

Why would you think that being independent of Canada means that a new western state wouldn't join those organizations and agreements? Why are you assuming that independence means xenophobia and hostility?

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I imagine they would. But it will take 20 years. How bad will things get in 20 years?

No, see, this is Project Fear, Canuck style.
You leave, your trade automatically drops to zero. Which is of course completely wrong.
They must have a handbook they circulate to automatically scare people.

[Martin15]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

The FN will get to vote like anyone else and if Alberta/Sask votes (say) 65% to leave then if the FN oppose the action they'll have to pound sand. It simply won't be Ottawa's decision to stop sovereignty...especially if Alberta/Sask apply for and receive US statehood.

JaredMilne JaredMilne:

That's not how the Treaties work. They're signed with the British and Canadian Crown, not with whatever state entity a separate Alberta and/or Saskatchewan would form. That could open the door to partition, as could any part of the newly independent states that votes overwhelmingly to stay part of Canada.

Scotland voted '60%' to Remain in the UK referendum, and here they are, leaving... maybe
Internationally, no one is advocating for them at all, not even the most leftists in the EU.
Internationally, it will be the same, it's an internal issue.

Domestically, who knows... the partition of Quebec was used as a whipping post against
the separatists, along with lots of other threats.

[Tricks]

Martin15 Martin15:

An independent Alberta would have no need for any military at all.

Why is that?

[Tricks]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

One more fucking time: We elect Presidents on a state-by-state basis to prevent the country from being ruled by the votes of as few as five states. This serves the purpose of helping to prevent EXACTLY THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE WITH SECESSION.

Your system wouldn't likely solve the issue either. Your system works because there are 50 states, and with each state having a minimum of 3 reps, large states like California or New York can be counter acted by enough small states. In Canada we don't have enough provinces for that to work. We'd have to pick an arbitrary number of "votes" per province without any real basis in something like population (like you folks do). If we did population, Alberta and Sask represent maybe 15% or so. So basing it off population like you guys do, it wouldn't have changed anything. 13 areas vs 50 makes the situation very different.

[DrCaleb]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

And here you see the wisdom of the electoral college system that prevents a tyranny of the majority.

The "Wisdom" of winning without the popular vote.

One more fucking time: We elect Presidents on a state-by-state basis to prevent the country from being ruled by the votes of as few as five states. This serves the purpose of helping to prevent EXACTLY THE PROBLEM YOU HAVE WITH SECESSION.

You saw the wink, right?

Besides, we deal with this in the Senate. Appointments are for life, and each province or territory has the same number of Senators.

[Thanos]

Which means fuck all because the senate is loaded up with party operatives and pals of whichever party is in power. It's just a worthless amen chorus doing what they're ordered to by the PMO.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos Thanos:

Which means fuck all because the senate is loaded up with party operatives and pals of whichever party is in power. It's just a worthless amen chorus doing what they're ordered to by the PMO.

Ditto in the US. The US Senate used to represent the many states in Congress and the House represented the People.

Not any more. Now the Senate is just a cloistered insider's club of people who uniformly (and 'mysteriously') enrich themselves while in office.

That includes both Bernie and Elizabeth Warren.