211–220 of 382 posts
https://unifixion.substack.com/p/political-boundaries-are-no...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As an outsider I like this idea of being able to vote yourself out. This is the ultimate test of a democracy, imho, that you can leave it democratically (by vote and not by force). We've seen some interesting cases of this, in Spain and in the Donbas of the last years. I think the outcome of people voting against it is a great outcome. You have the freedom. You paid for the vote (its expensive) and "they" did not win…
> As an outsider I like this idea of being able to vote yourself out "Voting with your feet" is an option available to almost everyone except North Koreans.
I'm not at all sure if voting to splice a country should be a thing you can do, maybe there is more merit in some international right to a proportional vote on something (no FPTP system) so you get better representation of all opinions, but simply saying "you can always go somewhere else" seems a bit too simple
As an albertan this feels like desperate pandering to a tiny vocal minority to distract from real issues. Almost nobody wants this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what they said about Brexit. 52% of the population voted yes in a single election, and the rest got dragged along for a multi-year ride. Current polls put support for the decision at 31%, but it's too late.
About a quarter voted yes, about a quarter voted no, about a quarter didn't vote and a quarter couldn't vote
More rationally, if some 25% of the country can’t express themselves and another 25% are unsure/uncommitted one should assume their interests are best represented by the most invigorated and unified minority.
I wish I could drop an ‘/s’, but, uh, ‘/no-really-thats-this-timeline’.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a non-Albertan, this seems like a great bargaining ploy to get some leverage against the Federal Government, just like Quebec did. Most political parties in Canada seem to ignore and exploit the West most of the time, whereas they treat Quebec (transfer payments) and the maritimes (oil revenues and employment insurance) much more thoughtfully.
Exploit the West? Thats rich and definitely a western centric short sighted viewpoint.
If you want to understand why Alberta is holding a referendum on whether they should hold another separate legally-binding referendum in the future, you have to look at the recent court case where a judge in Alberta ruled that one of the two main petitions wasn’t allowed to proceed (The one that specifically called for a legally-binding referendum). The judges stated reason is that First Nations were not adequately c…
95% of Alberta is unceded First Nations land. It is not a valid country without it - without the consent of the relevant First Nations, a separated Alberta would be a few municipalities enveloped by... Canada. This is not a concern in Quebec, because the overwhelming majority of it is ceded land. If ducks had two wheels, they'd be bicycles, and if there was anything in common between the two provinces, you might have…
Many commenters seem to be appealing to an almost religious defense of present political borders. That attitude is untenable: there is nothing sacred about national boundaries, they are mere political artifacts like rules, regulations, tax codes, etc. If the people want to change them, they absolutely have the right to do so. https://unifixion.substack.com/p/political-boundaries-are-no...
Many commenters seem to be appealing to an almost religious defense of present political borders. That attitude is untenable: there is nothing sacred about national boundaries, they are mere political artifacts like rules, regulations, tax codes, etc. If the people want to change them, they absolutely have the right to do so. https://unifixion.substack.com/p/political-boundaries-are-no...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Brexit referendum was non-binding for important constitutional reasons. Legally, leaving required an Act of Parliament. To hold a binding referendum, they would have had to pass an Act that says "here are the exact details of how we'll leave the EU, coming into force if the referendum passes". But that would have required them to figure out all the exact details of what it means to leave the EU, and they didn't b…
Maybe you can help illuminate something that confused me about the result of the referendum. I thought it was worded such that voting yes would lead to a committee determining the details, and that that would lead to a second referendum? It felt like the UK population was tricked into voting for a 'sure I'll hear out your plan' which then turned into 'cool, we'll make a plan and then begin implementing it'.
The wording of such a famous referendum shouldn't be hard to find if you want to know the wording
Edit: just realised I still had this tab open from checking something for another subthread. It says nothing about a committee https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2016_EU_Referendum_Ballot...
Edit edit :)
On the same page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_Kingdom_European_U...), I found this. Perhaps you're remembering that?
> After internal polls suggested that 85% of the UK population wanted more information about the referendum from the government, a leaflet was sent to every household in the UK. It contained details about why the government believed the UK should remain in the EU. This leaflet was criticised by those wanting to leave as giving the remain side an unfair advantage; it was also described as being inaccurate and a waste of taxpayers' money (it cost £9.3m in total). During the campaign, Nigel Farage suggested that there would be public demand for a second referendum should the result be a remain win closer than 52–48%, because the leaflet meant that the remain side had been permitted to spend more money
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As far as I know, First Nations lands in Alberta are indeed ''ceded'' under Treaties 6, 7, and 8 with the Crown. British Columbia is a province with a huge proportion of unceded land, but not Alberta.
The treaties with the crown require the crown consult with them before adjusting them. This means that Albertan secession can't happen without their consent, as it would by definition, completely and unilaterally adjust the terms of those treaties. The treaties were made in perpetuity, and if you are going to not hold up the crown's end of the promises, the FN's side - giving the crown and Alberta governance over the…
do you actually know what the terms are, and who has what responsibility to them?
