#Wexit

Opening a thread for Canadians to discuss "Wexit", while it's still a thing.

What do you guys think? Good idea? Treason? Even doable?

Given the results of the last election, this is an easy one to get lost in partisanship over. Is it possible to have a more practical discussion?

My personal opinion...you gotta love the balls of separatists. All of Canada belongs to all of Canada. My hope is that Canada would take any and every step necessary to protect the entire nation. Given that this is a largely conservative movement, and given that the general conservative response to anyone not liking the country is "Love it or leave it", why should any of us even entertain this ridiculous notion? And what if they succeed? How do they expect their economy to survive? They have no ports, and they wouldn't be able to expect any kind of lenient trade dealings with the country they just flipped the bird to...what's their option? Become America's bitch? To me this just sounds like the kind of "solutions" children arrive at in the middle of a full blown temper tantrums, combined with the wet plopping sound of a bull taking a giant ****.

I have sympathy for Albertans. And I value the ones who remain loyal Canadians, in the same way I value loyal Canadians in every province and territory. We need to do better for them...though Trudeau nearly lost the election buying them a pipeline, so I'm not sure what "better" looks like. But as a Canadian, I reject separatist movements entirely, and can't fathom why they are tolerated. It's not intelligent, and it's only a couple steps removed from domestic terrorism.

There...that should be sufficiently divisive...hehe... Any takers?

I'm not a Canadian, but what's the big deal if a group of people want to go their separate ways?

We see the same thing in many other contexts: divorce, friendships ended, business partnerships dissolved, etc. and I believe most people would view it as barbaric to force them to stay together.

Why should political relationships be any different?

I would love the four Republican Senators and massive oil wealth the United States would assume if say Saskatchewan and Alberta just became states.

And if the US can annex them then BC will be politically isolated and disproportionately powerful in what’s left of Canada so they’ll make a free trade agreement for the oil movement.

I see this as a win win scenario, except for “loyal Canada”

Please AB and SK! Come to the USA!

aociswundumho said:

I'm not a Canadian, but what's the big deal if a group of people want to go their separate ways?

We see the same thing in many other contexts: divorce, friendships ended, business partnerships dissolved, etc. and I believe most people would view it as barbaric to force them to stay together.

Why should political relationships be any different?

Click to expand...

Because we're not talking about a relationship, we're talking about a country. Not only does every province benefit from federal money, which comes from taxing all Canadians, but Canadians invest heavily in their country individually, just as Americans do. A province is simply a subsection of the country it is in, just like a state is. If they want to leave, what happens to all that investment? And currently, the resources in their province are Canadian resources. In the other relationships you mentioned there is a settling of accounts, a dividing of assets, or some kind of pay out. How would that look in the case of dissolving a political relationship?

EMNofSeattle said:

I would love the four Republican Senators and massive oil wealth the United States would assume if say Saskatchewan and Alberta just became states.

And if the US can annex them then BC will be politically isolated and disproportionately powerful in what’s left of Canada so they’ll make a free trade agreement for the oil movement.

I see this as a win win scenario, except for “loyal Canada”

Please AB and SK! Come to the USA!

Click to expand...

Hey, great contribution. You always make the most sense.

OlNate said:

In the other relationships you mentioned there is a settling of accounts, a dividing of assets, or some kind of pay out. How would that look in the case of dissolving a political relationship?

Click to expand...

I don't know, but it's been done before. Political boundaries have changed all over the world at different times. I think it's untenable to hold the view that the current political setup must remain forever.

aociswundumho said:

I don't know, but it's been done before. Political boundaries have changed all over the world at different times. I think it's untenable to hold the view that the current political setup must remain forever.

Click to expand...

Sure, they have...but usually as a result of violence, or a well thought out, mutually beneficial process. The fact is, there isn't a real complaint here. Only a temper tantrum. And it would essentially hurt every single person involved, including the mouth breathers that actually think this is a good idea. Surely a country is allowed to defend itself against suicide, no?

OlNate said:

Hey, great contribution. You always make the most sense.

Click to expand...

In what ways does it not?

There was actually a statement movement for Newfoundland after the Dominion of Newfoundland had a financial crisis following world war 1, in the end Canada annexed Newfoundland however there was a movement for union with the United States instead, there were also a handful of overtures to trying to encourage Quebec to join the US after our constitution was ratified (in fact that’s one reason the first amendments establishment clause was written)

So such a thing is not unprecedented in theory.

EMNofSeattle said:

In what ways does it not?

There was actually a statement movement for Newfoundland after the Dominion of Newfoundland had a financial crisis following world war 1, in the end Canada annexed Newfoundland however there was a movement for union with the United States instead, there were also a handful of overtures to trying to encourage Quebec to join the US after our constitution was ratified (in fact that’s one reason the first amendments establishment clause was written)

So such a thing is not unprecedented in theory.

Click to expand...

Wasn't arguing.

Albertan born and raised.

The angry is less than in the early 80s during the NEP (with a larger economic crisis). The sense of alienation is not any more than it was in the 90s with the rise of the Reform party, in which Alberta felt alone in Confed (which is why it created a populist conservative party. Demographics have changed in the cities, I doubt the large number of ethnic minorities in Calgary and Edmonton would be supportive of a predominately rural white movement for separatism

The biggest issue would be over First Nations, they signed treaties with Canada with plenty of them still to be settled (land claims) I expect they would rather stay as part of Canada as opposed to being part of a "country" which is unlikely to respect their rights in order to exploit more oil and gas. The Can government can further complicate that issue by granting significant land claim wins for the First Nations before separation


As for joining the US, both Alberta and Sask generally and strongly support Universal Health Care, something that would be at significant risk joining the US. So that is not going to happen. Both have enough natural resources to be able to go it alone

Lord Tammerlain said:

Albertan born and raised.

The angry is less than in the early 80s during the NEP (with a larger economic crisis). The sense of alienation is not any more than it was in the 90s with the rise of the Reform party, in which Alberta felt alone in Confed (which is why it created a populist conservative party. Demographics have changed in the cities, I doubt the large number of ethnic minorities in Calgary and Edmonton would be supportive of a predominately rural white movement for separatism

The biggest issue would be over First Nations, they signed treaties with Canada with plenty of them still to be settled (land claims) I expect they would rather stay as part of Canada as opposed to being part of a "country" which is unlikely to respect their rights in order to exploit more oil and gas. The Can government can further complicate that issue by granting significant land claim wins for the First Nations before separation


As for joining the US, both Alberta and Sask generally and strongly support Universal Health Care, something that would be at significant risk joining the US. So that is not going to happen. Both have enough natural resources to be able to go it alone

Click to expand...

This is my sense as well. It's a pipe dream....or should I say pipe nightmare...excuse the pun. The fact that conservatives were hitting percentages in the 80's was significant, though. It does seem to suggest a far more unified mindframe.

So, how do we simmer this down? Again, Trudeau nearly lost the election through buying that pipeline - giving those votes to the Green party and the NDP. Is there anything that can be done to make them happy? Or is it too early in the tantrum to attempt reason?

Lord Tammerlain said:

Albertan born and raised.

The angry is less than in the early 80s during the NEP (with a larger economic crisis). The sense of alienation is not any more than it was in the 90s with the rise of the Reform party, in which Alberta felt alone in Confed (which is why it created a populist conservative party. Demographics have changed in the cities, I doubt the large number of ethnic minorities in Calgary and Edmonton would be supportive of a predominately rural white movement for separatism

The biggest issue would be over First Nations, they signed treaties with Canada with plenty of them still to be settled (land claims) I expect they would rather stay as part of Canada as opposed to being part of a "country" which is unlikely to respect their rights in order to exploit more oil and gas. The Can government can further complicate that issue by granting significant land claim wins for the First Nations before separation


As for joining the US, both Alberta and Sask generally and strongly support Universal Health Care, something that would be at significant risk joining the US. So that is not going to happen. Both have enough natural resources to be able to go it alone

Click to expand...

Sorry, thought of one other thing...perhaps they have the resources to go it alone, but with no port they have no route to market. Given the partisan division, not to mention the massive insult to the country to whom they belong, I doubt that Canada would be very interested in doing much business - I can only imagine the boycotting....and demands for tariffs. Are they really able to go it alone, or would it only be possible with the economic involvement of country they claim to hate?

OlNate said:

Sorry, thought of one other thing...perhaps they have the resources to go it alone, but with no port they have no route to market. Given the partisan division, not to mention the massive insult to the country to whom they belong, I doubt that Canada would be very interested in doing much business - I can only imagine the boycotting....and demands for tariffs. Are they really able to go it alone, or would it only be possible with the economic involvement of country they claim to hate?

Click to expand...

To be able to go it alone of course would require both sides not acting like petty children. Rail traffic would be an issue, as most routes go east and west, not south. Oil I expect a majority of exports go south (not all).

If AlSask separated, and both were acting like petty children, the living standards would drop drastically in Alberta, (only savings grace is our population is relatively small compared to most land locked oil states.

The going alone was more meant to say, it would not need to join the US

OlNate said:

This is my sense as well. It's a pipe dream....or should I say pipe nightmare...excuse the pun. The fact that conservatives were hitting percentages in the 80's was significant, though. It does seem to suggest a far more unified mindframe.

So, how do we simmer this down? Again, Trudeau nearly lost the election through buying that pipeline - giving those votes to the Green party and the NDP. Is there anything that can be done to make them happy? Or is it too early in the tantrum to attempt reason?

Click to expand...

Alberta votes conservative, it is a tradition. The best in politics join the conservatives (even minorities with quite a few east Indian MP's coming from Edmonton and Calgary) The rural and energy related Albertan's are upset (rural is almost always upset) and energy related is just because of low energy prices. Should the export capacity match the production capacity (or exceed it) then the energy related people will simmer down and be happy. But with lower prices, the multi billion dollar projects wont get built, the people involved in the construction of them wont see the $100 000 + per year jobs they saw in the early 2010's come back. Those workers spent big on toys like heavy duty trucks, motorcycles, snow mobiles etc. Now many are close to being broke.

I expect a lot of potential NDP/Green/Liberal voters stayed home, or voted Con just because of the general sentiment in Alberta, I doubt most people would want to say they voted Liberal among most co workers.

OlNate said:

Because we're not talking about a relationship, we're talking about a country. Not only does every province benefit from federal money, which comes from taxing all Canadians, but Canadians invest heavily in their country individually, just as Americans do. A province is simply a subsection of the country it is in, just like a state is. If they want to leave, what happens to all that investment? And currently, the resources in their province are Canadian resources. In the other relationships you mentioned there is a settling of accounts, a dividing of assets, or some kind of pay out. How would that look in the case of dissolving a political relationship?

Click to expand...

OlNate:

I beg to differ. Provinces are not simply subsections of Canada. Canada is a confederation of sovereign provinces and is not a unitary state with provinces which are simply administrative subdivisions. The provinces have greater legal standing than the Federal "whole", from a constitutional standing. That is both the key to understanding Canada and the central wisdom in offering good governance to the country by any federal government in Canada. The West is right to be angry with Canadian Federalism at times in our history because many Canadian governments have not governed with the sovereignty of the Provinces in mind. The provinces are partners in, and not subjects under, Canadian Federalism.

Now the inverse is also true. Too many provincial governments view their mandate as being limited to getting the best deal for their own provinces and damn the consequences for the rest of the federation. That is equally flawed thinking, because as provincial partners in the confederation, they have joint and several responsibility for all of Canada too. So both the Federal Government and the Provincial governments must take care to consider the well-being of all of Canada when they formulate policy and draft legislation or pass orders in council. Canada is not a large 23-man canoe being captained by the Federal Government. It is a bunch of smaller canoes which are self directed, being gently shepherded by the Federal Government and each individual canoe is also responsible for the safety and the performance of the whole Canadian flotilla.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

OlNate:

I beg to differ. Provinces are not simply subsections of Canada. Canada is a confederation of sovereign provinces and is not a unitary state with provinces which are simply administrative subdivisions. The provinces have greater legal standing than the Federal "whole", from a constitutional standing. That is both the key to understanding Canada and the central wisdom in offering good governance to the country by any federal government in Canada. The West is right to be angry with Canadian Federalism at times in our history because many Canadian governments have not governed with the sovereignty of the Provinces in mind. The provinces are partners in, and not subjects under, Canadian Federalism.

Now the inverse is also true. Too many provincial governments view their mandate as being limited to getting the best deal for their own provinces and damn the consequences for the rest of the federation. That is equally flawed thinking, because as provincial partners in the confederation, they have joint and several responsibility for all of Canada too. So both the Federal Government and the Provincial governments must take care to consider the well-being of all of Canada when they formulate policy and draft legislation or pass orders in council. Canada is not a large 23-man canoe being captained by the Federal Government. It is a bunch of smaller canoes which are self directed, being gently shepherded by the Federal Government and each individual canoe is also responsible for the safety and the performance of the whole Canadian flotilla.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Sorry, Canada is the country, the provinces are the sub organization. This is never in dispute when provinces have their hands held out for money. You can't suck and blow at the same time. Either you are part of a country, in which case the entire country has an obligation to ensure that you are on the same level as everywhere else in the country, in terms of support, or you are not. So, while you know I like a lot of what you say, I thoroughly reject this on principle.

But, let's entertain it for a sec. If a province is it's own entity, and can leave at any time they like, then before anything happens let's put together a bill. A repayment plan. For the CANADIAN resources lost. For the CANADIAN investments made. Let's see what these piss poor ingrates look like after that...and if they still think they can make it on their own.

Sorry, money is never "gentle", and every single province has accepted far too much from the Federal Government, which, by extension implies the pockets of every Canadian tax payer, to get to call themselves an island. **** separation, in all it's cowardly, selfish, populist, and deluded forms. I'll entertain an endless parade of examples and complaints as to why one province feels like it is being left behind in order to fix them, but I will not spend even a moment of my own consideration to giving away a part of MY country, nor will I harbor an iota of sympathy for any traitor wishing for the destruction of this country - which, let's face it, from any number of perspectives, losing either the prairies or Quebec would lead to.

OlNate said:

Sorry, Canada is the country, the provinces are the sub organization. This is never in dispute when provinces have their hands held out for money. You can't suck and blow at the same time. Either you are part of a country, in which case the entire country has an obligation to ensure that you are on the same level as everywhere else in the country, in terms of support, or you are not. So, while you know I like a lot of what you say, I thoroughly reject this on principle.

But, let's entertain it for a sec. If a province is it's own entity, and can leave at any time they like, then before anything happens let's put together a bill. A repayment plan. For the CANADIAN resources lost. For the CANADIAN investments made. Let's see what these piss poor ingrates look like after that...and if they still think they can make it on their own.

Sorry, money is never "gentle", and every single province has accepted far too much from the Federal Government, which, by extension implies the pockets of every Canadian tax payer, to get to call themselves an island. **** separation, in all it's cowardly, selfish, populist, and deluded forms. I'll entertain an endless parade of examples and complaints as to why one province feels like it is being left behind in order to fix them, but I will not spend even a moment of my own consideration to giving away a part of MY country, nor will I harbor an iota of sympathy for any traitor wishing for the destruction of this country - which, let's face it, from any number of perspectives, losing either the prairies or Quebec would lead to.

Click to expand...

OlNate:

I understand and share your frustation with separatist movements but history and law give provinces certain rights including a type of sovereignty which predates the creation of the confederation of Canada.

Who petitioned the British Parliament to create Canada? It was provincial leaders of provincial governments who cooperated to create Canada. Canada is a confederation of provinces with some territories to boot and has been since 1867. The Provinces created Canada in cooperation with the British Parliament between 1862 and 1867. Canada is the child and the provinces are the parents. Not the other way around.

Since some of the provinces pre-existed Canada they have a better legal and constitutional claim to sovereignty than the whole confederation. I didn't make this history and constitutional law up. It's just the way it is. We have not had a civil war like the Americans to settle the issue of a right to secession, so that right still remains an open question and a strong case can be made for a right to secession by at least a majority of the provinces. I don't like it any more than you do, but that is the legal reality we face. About the only legal precedent in Canadian history supporting the primacy of the Federal Government is Sir John A MacDonald's use of the Canadian militia to crush the Assiniboine Territory Rebellion of 1870 and the forced creation of the Province of Manitoba that year by the Manitoba Act of 1870. Since the Provinces of Saskatchewan and Alberta were created by acts of the Canadian Parliament in 1905, I suppose that the Federal Government could legally revoke those two province's existence too, but that would be politically impossible today in my opinion.

So we are stuck with political and legal/constitutional realities which make provinces far more sovereign and far more powerful than for example US states and therefore we have to live with that.

I like the idea of a legal settlement for secession act but such an act would effectively change the BNA Act of 1867 and the Canadian Constitutional Act of 1982, thus requiring the ratification of all provinces in Canada. So I think your very good idea would be viewed by legal scholars and jurists as dead on arrival.

Money and Islands would be a good title for a Canadian History book!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Alberta is mostly responsible for their own mess, they have had decades to diversify their economy away from oil and gas and create a more stable economy but they didn't. The NDP were the first ones in a long time to try and change that but then they got voted out and the the new Kenney government has double downed on oil and gas and now have policies to actively discourage economic diversification, describing it as a luxury. It is a necessity for any economy. Quebec eventually learned that the sovereigntist movement was bad for the economy but and is now on track to be one of or the best performing economy in Canada this year, Alberta has definitely not learned its lesson yet.

What do Albertans and Saskatewans want from the Federal Government these days? Do they want a Federal Government to override BC sovereignty and force through a pipeline against the wishes of that Province's government, people and First Nations? Remember if it can be done to BC now, then it can be done to Alberta or Saskatchewan tomorrow. Do they want the Federal Government to abandon its environmental policies such as the Carbon Tax knowing that such a reversal might make Canada and the rest of the world a much harder place for humans and other species to survive in? Do they want the Federal Government to liberalise trade in agricultural products so that Westerners have greater access to US markets but US producers can also flood the Canadian food markets?

What does the West want or is this the politics of alienation practiced by those in power in the West?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

aociswundumho said:

I'm not a Canadian, but what's the big deal if a group of people want to go their separate ways?

We see the same thing in many other contexts: divorce, friendships ended, business partnerships dissolved, etc. and I believe most people would view it as barbaric to force them to stay together.

Why should political relationships be any different?

Click to expand...

So-called "old faithful" like Olnate know the value of Alberta! However, Olnate's rhetoric is twisted - he's responding to conservatism instead!


Whereas Quebec separatists would want to quexit - however, they'd never make it without the dole-out from Canada!
They want "independence" - well, kinda. As long as they still get the alimony should they go on separate ways with the rest of Canada.



But with Alberta - lol! Canada will lose a sizeable revenue without Alberta!

Measuring Alberta’s contribution to federal finances

A new study recently released by the Fraser Institute measures the economic and fiscal contributions that Alberta makes to Canada as a whole. It shows that the province contributes disproportionately to the country’s fiscal balance and economic prosperity.


Albertans receive less in federal program spending than residents of other provinces, and the province’s relative prosperity has meant that the provincial government hasn’t received any equalization payments at any point in the past half-century.


In short, Alberta is a province that generates large amounts of revenue but requires a smaller amount of federal spending per-person than most other provinces.
Together, these two factors make Alberta a big net contributor to the health of federal finances.
This makes economic recovery in Alberta crucial not just for Albertans, but for Canada’s public finances.

Click to expand...

You are being redirected...

OlNate said:

This is my sense as well. It's a pipe dream....or should I say pipe nightmare...excuse the pun. The fact that conservatives were hitting percentages in the 80's was significant, though. It does seem to suggest a far more unified mindframe.

So, how do we simmer this down? Again, Trudeau nearly lost the election through buying that pipeline - giving those votes to the Green party and the NDP. Is there anything that can be done to make them happy? Or is it too early in the tantrum to attempt reason?

Click to expand...

You're mind is stuck in partisanship - a divisive mindset - that you've lost sight of the ball!
The issue has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism!
Therefore, you're the one flaming divisiveness when you keep trying to bring this problem down to the level of mere partisanship!



My dear friend Nate, you simply just don't understand why helping Alberta should be at the top of the list!
Helping Alberta is...…...helping Canada!



So maybe it'll clear it up for you - here's something from the Fraser Institute!

In short, Alberta is a province that generates large amounts of revenue but requires a smaller amount of federal spending per-person than most other provinces.

Together, these two factors make Alberta a big net contributor to the health of federal finances.

This makes economic recovery in Alberta crucial not just for Albertans, but for Canada’s public finances.

Click to expand...

You are being redirected...


That's why Trudeau's half-hearted attempt to "help" Alberta, is just not good enough! Especially so when Trudeau spends our money like a drunken sailor!
It should be his top priority!


Simple common sense:


You don't neglect the goose that lays the golden eggs!

tosca1 said:

You're mind is stuck in partisanship - a divisive mindset - that you've lost sight of the ball!
The issue has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism!
Therefore, you're the one flaming divisiveness when you keep trying to bring this problem down to the level of mere partisanship!



My dear friend Nate, you simply just don't understand why helping Alberta should be at the top of the list!
Helping Alberta is...…...helping Canada!



So maybe it'll clear it up for you - here's something from the Fraser Institute!



You are being redirected...


That's why Trudeau's half-hearted attempt to "help" Alberta, is just not good enough! Especially so when Trudeau spends our money like a drunken sailor!
It should be his top priority!


Simple common sense:


You don't neglect the goose that lays the golden eggs!

Click to expand...

Help Alberta? Ever hear the slogan, "Let them freeze in the dark!"? That was Alberta's reaction when Trudeau 1 said we needed a "national energy policy" so Maritimers didn't have to pay world prices for Canadian oil. Alberta is part of Canada every time they need something but just let another oil boom happen and It's every Albertan for himself.

Crimeney, you guys are even polite when you argue politics!! :lamo

I am so jealous.

tosca1 said:

You're mind is stuck in partisanship - a divisive mindset - that you've lost sight of the ball!
The issue has nothing to do with liberalism or conservatism!
Therefore, you're the one flaming divisiveness when you keep trying to bring this problem down to the level of mere partisanship!



My dear friend Nate, you simply just don't understand why helping Alberta should be at the top of the list!
Helping Alberta is...…...helping Canada!



So maybe it'll clear it up for you - here's something from the Fraser Institute!



You are being redirected...


That's why Trudeau's half-hearted attempt to "help" Alberta, is just not good enough! Especially so when Trudeau spends our money like a drunken sailor!
It should be his top priority!


Simple common sense:


You don't neglect the goose that lays the golden eggs!

Click to expand...

Tos, once again, he's building a pipeline.

And yes, I'm rather divisive, when it comes to putting distance between myself and mouth breathing **** sniffers who don't know how good they've got it.

And, by the way, both Ontario and Quebec contribute more to GDP than Alberta. Go ahead, look it up. Ontario contributes nearly triple what Alberta does. One thing about statistics, Tos...they ain't partisan. Now, what were you saying about that pesky ol' goose?

Back to you, my dear friend.

Checkerboard Strangler said:

Crimeney, you guys are even polite when you argue politics!! :lamo

I am so jealous.

Click to expand...

Sorry... :lol: