All Things AB Separatism (split fm Liberal Minority Government 2025 - ???)

[MilEME09]

Pierre Poilievre finally makes the CPC position explicitly clear, they will campaign against separation in the event of a referendum

Poilievre says all Conservatives will campaign for Alberta to stay part of Canada

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says he and all Conservative MPs will press for Alberta to remain part of Canada in any separation referendum campaign in the province.

www.ctvnews.ca

 

[QV]

They have to. Otherwise the CPC becomes a shell of it's current self.

 

[Lumber]

Pierre Poilievre finally makes the CPC position explicitly clear, they will campaign against separation in the event of a referendum

Poilievre says all Conservatives will campaign for Alberta to stay part of Canada

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says he and all Conservative MPs will press for Alberta to remain part of Canada in any separation referendum campaign in the province.

www.ctvnews.ca

My respect for PP just went up measurably.

 

[MilEME09]

They have to. Otherwise the CPC becomes a shell of it's current self.

how ever it sets the stage for an interesting head to head of a provincial arm of a party being pro separation, with the federal party being against it. Depending on Smith's Next move, the federal conservatives may cut ties with the UCP

 

[QV]

how ever it sets the stage for an interesting head to head of a provincial arm of a party being pro separation, with the federal party being against it. Depending on Smith's Next move, the federal conservatives may cut ties with the UCP

Smith has stated publicly over and over her position is a united Canada.

With that said, if this country cant figure out how to take advantage of its extreme potential and unparalleled advantages, especially in the current geopolitical climate, it deserves to break apart.

It’s not Alberta working to separate, it’s the RoC pushing it out.

 

[Lumber]

With that said, if this country cant figure out how to take advantage of its extreme potential and unparalleled advantages, especially in the current geopolitical climate, it deserves to break apart.

If your solution to a country failing to fully capitalize on an opportunity is ‘then it deserves to collapse,’ that’s not political reasoning; that’s the emotional maturity of someone threatening divorce because the vacation planning wasn’t optimized.

 

[QV]

If your solution to a country failing to fully capitalize on an opportunity is ‘then it deserves to collapse,’ that’s not political reasoning; that’s the emotional maturity of someone threatening divorce because the vacation planning wasn’t optimized.

If I were referring to one isolated opportunity, your point might be valid. It’s decades worth. These past few years are just the peak opportunities missed due to decades of bad policy.

 

[MilEME09]

Smith has stated publicly over and over her position is a united Canada.

She wouldn't be doing this if she was a federalist. This twists even forever canada into word salad. QC you continue to assert She is a federalist, a federalist wouldnt be standing up for seperatists in court, if this was Qc you'd be appauled

https://twitter.com/x/status/2057624450288562183

 

[Altair]

So the referendum question is on whether or not to have a referendum.

This is.....actually smart.

Shouldn't run afoul of the courts and duty to consult.

Also listens to both sides.

Will it be enough for Rath? Probably not.

 

[Altair]

So the referendum question is on whether or not to have a referendum.

This is.....actually smart.

Shouldn't run afoul of the courts and duty to consult.

Also listens to both sides.

Will it be enough for Rath? Probably not.

https://twitter.com/x/status/2057625388017221699

Well, you heard the man, she llst her base.

 

[Lumber]

If I were referring to one isolated opportunity, your point might be valid. It’s decades worth. These past few years are just the peak opportunities missed due to decades of bad policy.

You talk about separation like it’s some clean strategic solution instead of an economically and politically catastrophic gamble driven mostly by frustration and resentment. You don’t fix decades of bad governance by detonating the country and hoping the fallout will somehow lead to a western utopia.

 

[Lumber]

So the referendum question is on whether or not to have a referendum.

This is.....actually smart.

Shouldn't run afoul of the courts and duty to consult.

Also listens to both sides.

Will it be enough for Rath? Probably not.

Clever, but not smart. Shes not going to appease the pro-Canada crowd, and now she's going to piss off the separatist crowd.

 

[MilEME09]

Clever, but not smart. Shes not going to appease the pro-Canada crowd, and now she's going to piss off the separatist crowd.

Well lets see if they remove her now like they threatened

 

[Altair]

Clever, but not smart. Shes not going to appease the pro-Canada crowd, and now she's going to piss off the separatist crowd.

Out of all the bad choices she backed herself in this is probably the best way out of it without needing to go to war with the courts and with the hope that she keeps her job.

I'll give her credit for that.

 

[MilEME09]

Ill give rare credit to Smith for this, masterful thread of the needle to prevent an actual separation referendum until 2028 at the earliest

https://twitter.com/x/status/2057633970796544079

 

[Blackadder1916]

How does one answer this question?

“Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”

The other 9 questions that have already been included in the October 19 referendum have been worded to meet the criteria of (as given in the Orders in Council authorizing it) ". . . to which the response from an elector who votes in the referendum must be either “yes” or “no”".

There are "two" questions. Did the wording of the question that the premier stated will be added originate with the committee of idiots or did she and her staff mash that together? So are we going to see "11" questions on the referendum in October and will the form of response be different from other questions? I foresee confusion in the voting process and moreso in the counting (it will be a long, long night) with increased potential for the usual suspects to claim foul.

 

[MilEME09]

How does one answer this question?

“Should Alberta remain a province of Canada or should the Government of Alberta commence the legal process required under the Canadian Constitution to hold a binding provincial referendum on whether or not Alberta should separate from Canada?”

The other 9 questions that have already been included in the October 19 referendum have been worded to meet the criteria of (as given in the Orders in Council authorizing it) ". . . to which the response from an elector who votes in the referendum must be either “yes” or “no”".

There are "two" questions. Did the wording of the question that the premier stated will be added originate with the committee of idiots or did she and her staff mash that together? So are we going to see "11" questions on the referendum in October and will the form of response be different from other questions? I foresee confusion in the voting process and moreso in the counting (it will be a long, long night) with increased potential for the usual suspects to claim foul.

Sure is clear as mud aint it?

 

[Altair]

Sure is clear as mud aint it?

Thank goodness the clarity act is not at play here.

 

[Altair]

https://twitter.com/x/status/2057765856352911776

Leopard is starting to eat face.

 

[brihard]

In a nutshell, they will hold a provincial referendum to determine if the UCP government is democratically mandated to adopt a policy to move forward towards an actual separation referendum.

A win on this what I’ll call ‘mandate referendum’ by the separatists would cause the government to begin the consultations needed to develop a legal separation referendum question. In effect, rather than forcing the separatists to do the legwork and satisfy all the relevant legal criteria to advance their cause, Smith has decided the UCP will blow with the wind on this and will allow their policy on sovereignty to be externally imposed. “You show us the numbers, we’ll take this on”.

This is feckless on the part of Smith and the UCP. They’ve shown that as a party they are open and willing to advance the separatist cause. They’re unwilling to say “nope, you bring your issue through the courts and hammer out a legal path there”.

The one good thing is that the population will still have the chance to repudiate this in five months and consent the mandate. Problem though is that, because this first mandate referendum will simply open the door to separation without committing anyone to walking through, there’s a greater chance of ‘protest votes’ in favour to send some sort of message.

Big picture, Alberta is about to table a proposal on a new pipeline and hopes and needs to attract private capital. A lot of it. This signals that Alberta presents greater political and economic risk than it did before. The government will play footsies with separatists. Anyone considering a pipeline investment needs to consider the potential political and legal tumult of this mandate referendum returns a ‘yes’ to the mandate, kicking off a government-sponsored endeavour to move separation forward. That’s no bueno.

It also almost certainly means that if there’s a vote ‘yes’ this October for the referendum mandate, that matter will drag on to and through and will dominate the 2027 provincial election.

Smith has attempted to split the baby here. I don’t think her move is quite as politically adroit as some of you do. It’s a decision that lacks character or courage of convictions. She’s still completely pissed off the separatists while offering no real reassurance to the pro-Canada side.

I think we’re about to see some major internal drama within the UCP and the overlapping separatist movement.