2022 CPC Leadership Discussion: Et tu Redeux

[Brad Sallows]

Trudeau has an impressive record of defeating a very competent sitting PM and two promising opposition leaders in general elections, which is surprising considering his obvious shortcomings.

A government turned out after approximately two terms in office can rarely be attributed to the skills of the opposition.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Everybody wants to separate until they see what territory falls under FN claims or actual territory, and realize they would lose most of the natural resources or actually get divided up into separate chunks.

It's an attractive idea until you look at the reality. Was funny during the 90s listening to QC calling themselves a nation, wanting to separate from Canada, but ignoring the First Nation territories inside QC, and claimiing QC is somehow indivisible.

Don't assume a new sovereign nation starting afresh is not going to rewrite whatever it wants.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I’m not going down that rabbit hole. Influence from many sides internal and external will have an effect. Self inflicted injury as well which I think was and is the CPCs biggest issue.

Even Pierre Poilievre isn’t going with that line of thinking. People should take a cue from that.

There's no CCP rabbit hole there. Harper was hated by people in various establishments who were accustomed to having their voices heard and heeded, and Harper knew his own mind and where he wanted to go.

 

[Remius]

Ya I think a coalition government keeping a CPC minority from forming would probably be an extreme for multiplier in that.

I see initial anger then I see some sobering rethink. Without the emotional, cultural and linguistic issues quebec had/has I doubt it rises to any level where the Quebec separatist movement did. But I expect the voices to be louder for sure.

And I can't blame them if they did. We lack appropriate representation.

I see the west following the Bloc. Back to regional representation and playing spoiler and getting what it wants by leveraging what they can in minority situations. They can get a lot more that way in my view.

 

[brihard]

Don't assume a new sovereign nation starting afresh is not going to rewrite whatever it wants.

Such a new nation would have no more valid claim to sovereignty than the preexisting first nations on that same soil. A hypothetically independent Alberta doesn’t get to just assert sovereignty over First Nation territories that they never owned to begin with. Any legal secession from Canada would be the product of long legal processes that would hammer all this out.

 

[Remius]

There's no CCP rabbit hole there. Harper was hated by people in various establishments who were accustomed to having their voices heard and heeded, and Harper knew his own mind and where he wanted to go.

Pretty much what I said. The rabbit hole wasn’t at all what I was presenting it’s what QV posited.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A sufficiently dissatisfied people don't have to follow the script everyone wants them to. They can "negotiate" their way out the same way, for example, Americans did. Whether or not anyone else is willing to intervene to kill people to prevent that is not easily decided.

 

[Navy_Pete]

A sufficiently dissatisfied people don't have to follow the script everyone wants them to. They can "negotiate" their way out the same way, for example, Americans did. Whether or not anyone else is willing to intervene to kill people to prevent that is not easily decided.

Cool story.

If I had to put money on which group definitely wouldn't go down without a fight between Albertan separatists and FNs in Alberta, none of it would be on angry Wild rose types, and may ultimately turn out totally different then they think if it came down to some kind of civil war... maybe even a completely sovereign FN country where the previous provinces were.

If a province ever separates, it should really come down to what the individual bands want to do. I very much doubt any would passively go along with the arbitrary provincial lines and total loss of all previous land acknowledgement, rights and everything else they've gotten.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Yes, I see that position. Another view:

1. One status of citizenship for all, whether by birth or naturalization.
2. No hereditary privileges or obligations whether individually or collectively; your parentage is irrelevant.
3. Write a constitution from a fresh slate.
4. All citizen residents have equal participation in whatever local government (if any) has jurisdiction where they reside.

 

[TacticalTea]

Cool story.

If I had to put money on which group definitely wouldn't go down without a fight between Albertan separatists and FNs in Alberta, none of it would be on angry Wild rose types, and may ultimately turn out totally different then they think if it came down to some kind of civil war... maybe even a completely sovereign FN country where the previous provinces were.

If a province ever separates, it should really come down to what the individual bands want to do. I very much doubt any would passively go along with the arbitrary provincial lines and total loss of all previous land acknowledgement, rights and everything else they've gotten.

Let's ease up on the fantasizing about war between Canadians.

I certainly would have no part in it and I would like to believe most CAF members wouldn't either.

Provincial borders are constitutionally protected. Can't really use the constitutional argument there. Fact of the matter is, separation would not happen in the blink of an eye. There would be a negotiated process that would result in the compromissory protection of both aboriginal interests and those of Albertans.

There already are transnational reserves between US and Canada, no reason the same couldn't be the case for sovereign Alberta and Canada.

 

[Navy_Pete]

Let's ease up on the fantasizing about war between Canadians.

I certainly would have no part in it and I would like to believe most CAF members wouldn't either.

Provincial borders are constitutionally protected. Can't really use the constitutional argument there. Fact of the matter is, separation would not happen in the blink of an eye. There would be a negotiated process that would result in the compromissory protection of both aboriginal interests and those of Albertans.

There already are transnational reserves between US and Canada, no reason the same couldn't be the case for sovereign Alberta and Canada.

I don't think it would ever come to it, just saying if it did, I wouldn't bet on the city kids and office workers, and a lot of posturing about Angry Westerners ignores our collective history.

A democratic resolution is the way to go, but it's ridiculous to think that only applies provincially and you can ignore the sovereign nation agreements with the FN bands that predate Canada and are part of our foundational constitution. A huge amount of that land overlaps with a huge amount of natural resources, so separating gets really unattractive if that's carved out, which is why understanding how a federation works is pretty important. And frankly if the FNs took their land back they'd probably get more direct benefits out of it then what they do now.

This reality largely makes QC sovereignty ridiculous in practice, and is similar for pretty much all provinces and territories. Similarly Federal debt is also divisible, so they wouldn't be starting fresh.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Federal debt is also divisible, so they wouldn't be starting fresh.

I'd like to believe so, but how could it be made to stick? Canadian debt belongs to the government of Canada. If a separation isn't negotiated, there's no leverage to force the separators to take on part of the debt obligation. If the new entity has its own currency and its own currency loses value compared to the Canadian dollar, the new entity might just find it easier to shrug and default. (They'd have trouble borrowing again, but that's a feature.)

 

[Remius]

I'd like to believe so, but how could it be made to stick? Canadian debt belongs to the government of Canada. If a separation isn't negotiated, there's no leverage to force the separators to take on part of the debt obligation. If the new entity has its own currency and its own currency loses value compared to the Canadian dollar, the new entity might just find it easier to shrug and default. (They'd have trouble borrowing again, but that's a feature.)

The same could be said for federal infrastructure. Just like with Quebec, issues of debt share, federal assets etc would all be on a hypothetical table.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Thus the complexity of a negotiated separation suggests there will never be one. If a separation happens, it'll be a hard break and none of the negotiation assumptions hold.

 

[Remius]

Thus the complexity of a negotiated separation suggests there will never be one. If a separation happens, it'll be a hard break and none of the negotiation assumptions hold.

I doubt it. If it’s a hard break it puts Alberta in a worse position. The willingness to negociate will come to the fore when both sides see what is to be lost.

Precedence would include Czechoslovakia, Brexit etc. And Quebec separatism was always predicated by a negotiated exit. There is no reason to believe that wouldn’t happen in the unlikely scenario that Alberta would go that route.

 

[QV]

Yes, I see that position. Another view:

1. One status of citizenship for all, whether by birth or naturalization.
2. No hereditary privileges or obligations whether individually or collectively; your parentage is irrelevant.
3. Write a constitution from a fresh slate.
4. All citizen residents have equal participation in whatever local government (if any) has jurisdiction where they reside.

Imagine that for a moment.

 

[QV]

Thus the complexity of a negotiated separation suggests there will never be one. If a separation happens, it'll be a hard break and none of the negotiation assumptions hold.

Any potential hard break would be softened instantly by an interested USA.

 

[Remius]

Any potential hard break would be softened instantly by an interested USA.

Interesting presumption. Generally international recognition is key to a successful separation. It is doubtful that the US would recognize an independent Alberta without a negotiated exit.

 

[QV]

A sufficiently dissatisfied people don't have to follow the script everyone wants them to. They can "negotiate" their way out the same way, for example, Americans did. Whether or not anyone else is willing to intervene to kill people to prevent that is not easily decided.

Interesting parallels. American revolution began with big dissatisfaction over taxes. Alberta is largely dissatisfied over equalization payments which is just a tax on Alberta and other payers.

 

[QV]

Interesting presumption. Generally international recognition is key to a successful separation. It is doubtful that the US would recognize an independent Alberta without a negotiated exit.

Suggest more than simple recognition. Probably offer Puerto Rico status.