Thread

1. WarmWash · 1789653662 · focus · HN ↗

   Meanwhile, Alberta, where all of Canada's "energy security" is located, is holding a secession referendum on Oct 19.

   The chances of Canada getting everyone to go along with this are close to zero. (As are the chances of Alberta actually seceding).

   It's just political theater

   1. speak_plainly · 1789655775 · focus · HN ↗

      The real political theatre is coming from Alberta. Secession can't be achieved unilaterally under Canadian constitutional law. A clear majority on a clear referendum question would create an obligation to negotiate.

      More critically, the Numbered Treaties (6, 7, and 8, and to a lesser extent 4 and 10) make the entire idea, for all practical purposes, a legal dead end. These are nation-to-nation covenants with the Crown and not with the province.

      To leave with its borders intact, Alberta would have to negotiate constitutional amendments with Ottawa and the other provinces, while securing affected First Nations’ consent to any transfer or replacement of their treaty relationships with Canada in a situation where Alberta has almost no leverage.

      Good luck.

      1. dallen33 · 1789656201 · focus · HN ↗

         Only sane response in this thread about this topic. Thank you.
      2. beached_whale · 1789658075 · focus · HN ↗

         Alberta's existence as a province was predicated upon those Treaties existing in the first place. It and Saskatchewan were part of the NW Territories until like 1905.
      3. atomic_cattlepr · 1789668070 · focus · HN ↗

         > A clear majority on a clear referendum question would create an obligation to negotiate.

         To be further clear: it would create an obligation on the Alberta government to negotiate. A provincial referendum creates no such obligation on the Canadian government.

Unofficial Hacker News client; not affiliated with Y Combinator.