Let's be clear, there is NO constitutional path for AB, BC or SK to join the United States & no plausible constitutional path for Canada as a whole to do it. Even if there weren't crushing majorities opposed in all 3, the Constitution would require consent from all 10 provinces AND Parliament. - ThreadSky

pothen.bsky.social • 14 days ago

Let's be clear, there is NO constitutional path for AB, BC or SK to join the United States & no plausible constitutional path for Canada as a whole to do it. Even if there weren't crushing majorities opposed in all 3, the Constitution would require consent from all 10 provinces AND Parliament.

Comments

pothen.bsky.social•14 days ago

A person who talks about AB or Sask simply joining the U.S. isn't merely advocating an extremely unpopular idea, that *could* legitimately be pursued if they somehow changed people's minds. It is something not achievable through legal / constitutional means.

eastpole.bsky.social•14 days ago

You are correct. We should be careful while discussing this topic, because it has become clear that Trump, at least, does not care whether something is legal or constitutional and he will ignore court orders and present the public with a fait accompli.

eastpole.bsky.social•14 days ago

It seems clear his supporters in other countries would follow this formula.

eastpole.bsky.social•14 days ago

The proving ground for anti-democratic actions has been the extraordinary efforts in QC, AB, and ON to sneak private medicine in, despite overwhelming public disapproval. :(

kimns.bsky.social•13 days ago

Lots of examples of anti-democratic actions are popping up. Here in Nova Scotia, our Premier tried to pass legislation to muzzle/fire our auditor general and control the freedom to information act, and suppress the voice of opposition and media, and confiscate privately owned land, all in 2 weeks.

kimns.bsky.social•13 days ago

He goes on about his landslide majority win, but he won it after calling a snap election and not sending out voter cards (which caused confusion). He won 53% of the 45% of voters who did show up. Then, he started pushing the above, plus other unpopular things, hard and fast.

pothen.bsky.social•14 days ago

Unlike Quebec or Newfoundland, there'd also be no plausible international law case either, because AB, Sask, etc. are essentially just arbitrary chunks of land carved out of their 1st govs thought was already "Canadian territory" (w. shared rights obtained through treaties w. fns).

cactusjackpine.bsky.social•13 days ago

Dictators don't care about such niceties.

donquixote66.bsky.social•13 days ago

What part of they don’t give af about constitution or law is not clear 🧐

Might makes right is the new policy. At least until someone puts them in their place.

y2skot.bsky.social•14 days ago

Whoever thinks BC would be interested is either delusional or on Earth Two.

millymia8.bsky.social•14 days ago

During BC elections, Con support was largely down to hate and disinfo dark money linked to AB. @thetyee.ca has lots about this.

decakay.bsky.social•3 days ago

Normally I am biased towards secessionists, just because of the phrase "you're not really free unless you can leave". BUT, there's no way it should be a 50%+1 style question.

"Canada owns this land, but it's ours because we work it" is kinda Marxist haha. See also: capitalists owning the factory.

pothen.bsky.social•3 days ago

Ordinarily the mechanism would be consent of other provinces... But we're not talking about succession alone, but annexation by a foreign republic - which triggers a more restrictive process - AND makes everyone else consenting much less likely.

pothen.bsky.social•3 days ago

e.g, Quebec succession, while retaining the Crown and maintaining association with Canada as against the U.S.) which was the proposal in 1995 was much less of a threat to Canada as a whole N's a breach of the goal of Confederation (keep Canada out of the U.S.) than any annexation by the U.S.A.

decakay.bsky.social•3 days ago

Oh, I understand that it's legally complicated. And it's okay that it's legally complicated, since Alberta belongs to Canada. If we were talking about corporate entities, it would all make intuitive sense.

Comments

Posting Rules

Reply