Only because Smith wants it moot. Forever Canada should get their vote first.
I agree as long as the threshold was made properly. There is questions about how the vote was conducted.
A no vote for that doesnt trigger separation, but a yes vote woukd shut down separation.
I would disagree that it would shut down the separation argument.
Smith cant have that, she needs separation right now politically to hold onto her own job
I disagree, this separation talk has Interfered with the sovereignty vote she wanted and still supports. It may damage any good that may have come from that position.
They would only need to say it once- if their actions matched. But when you say something ten or a hundred or a thousand times yet act in the opposite way, for everyone to see, your deeds belie your words and your words mean little to nothing.
She has instead made choice after choice to enabled and embolden the separatists.
The UCP has explicitly embraced the Citizen Initiative process as a recognized way for force the provincial government to a separation referendum. They did not have to do this, it was a choice. The correct answer to separatists could have been “go form a party and get elected”.
When it became apparent that the Citizen Initiative process would make it hard to get the necessary signatures for separation, they specifically had the necessary threshold lowered, and the amount of time to collect signatures lengthened by a month. They did not have to do this, it was a choice. The correct answer to separatists could have been “you can put in the same work and achieve the same threshold as everyone else”.
A competing petition that would put the question of reaffirming remaining in Canada did succeed under the old, higher threshold. She has buried that in committee and basically pretended like it doesn’t exist. The legislature changed the law to remove the deadline to act on the successful petition. They didn’t have to do that, that was also a choice. The correct answer would have been to either promptly schedule a referendum on that one essential question, or alternatively to put the question as-is to a vote in the legislature.
I wonder when they had started to work on Bill 54?
When the separatists filed their petition, it was referred by the Chief Electoral Officer to the courts for review, and was struck down as posing an unconstitutional question and violating treaty rights. The legislature again changed to rules, removing the power of the Chief Electoral Officer to have a question reviewed by a court for constitutionality. They specifically changed the rules to let an explicitly unconstitutional referendum question go forward. They didn’t have to do that, that was a choice.
What is wrong with having the Court rule on Constitution questions?
When the separatists were arguing in court over the constitutional matter, the provincial government had their own legal counsel argue in favour of continuing the petition process, and against a judicial order staying it. They argued against the same constitutional and treaty concerns that had already see. The courts rule against the petition once earlier. This was also a choice.
So, whatever the UCP
says, they’re standing there yapping with their thumb visibly on the scale. Their words are in plain conflict with their actions. At every step they have coddled and enabled the separatists.
I believE
@QV called incorrectly yesterday, that the UCP will not actually meaningfully commit and will blow with the wind:
But, while they presently hang against the flagpole waiting to be told which way to flap, it’s clear which way they hope the wind blows.
Interesting but I would say the UCP has to appease the group and give them their moment in the spot light. To quell any further uprisings.
There were changes already proposed to be brought forward in respect to Bill 54. I wonder how the time line match up.
This entire separation vote has added obstacles and negative effect on the sovereignty act the UCP is trying to implement. I wonder was the purpose.
I will wait for the RCMP to release their findings on Foreign interference before more comments. I wonder how far this will unravel the entire process.
For the record I am AGAINST separation, despite many of my friends believing I am for it. With all the messages and information I have been sent it has been funny to go through some of the opinions and few facts.
Even funnier when I have talked to more then a few separatists. I try to stay out of those conversations but for some reason those people gravitate to me. Narratives are funny to say the least. I really like the people who moved to Alberta from other provinces or moved back to Alberta from the US recently who believe separating will be economically better for us.
One question I ask is will the tanker ban be lifted off the North Coast? They often respond with they have to allow us access to tide water under UN agreements. I ask what agreement and what it the price to access tidewater?
As we all know to transit through a country You need an agreement. Those cost money. They usually walk away quietly.
