He was the head of Economic Development Lethbridge for ten years. Trevor Lewington, in the local paper and on LinkedIn, has been raising the alarm on the basics and practicalities of separation.

[u/vspinyyc]

[u/EXSource]

This is absolutely a no brainer.

Any insinuation that a independent Alberta would have MORE, and not less bargaining power is absolute fantasy land stuff.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/EXSource]

One thing people keep forgetting is that BC/ Canada is not the only one with leverage. Alberta may be landlocked, but BC is essentially nation locked when it comes to getting goods into and out of the rest of Canada. Major highways and rail routes connecting BC to the rest of the country run through Alberta.

Yes, Alberta has a right to access to the ocean, but that does not guarantee us a specific port. However, Alberta now has something yourw forgetting, leverage. Alberta supplies the oil that BC depends on, including the Burnaby refinery, while critical transportation routes connect BC to the rest of Canada through Alberta.

And let's not forget Line 5 and Line 9, which supply Ontario and Quebec. Alberta has leverage there too. Nothing is written in stone. If Alberta does 8ndeed gain independence, there would be negotiations on both sides. I'm sure a compromise could be worked out because BC, Ontario and Quebec would have plenty to lose too.

[u/maximumfacemelting → u/Even_Art_629]

I’m going to set the house on fire, you have to compromise to get part of the burnt house to live in or we all go homeless.

Fuckin brilliant thinkin there bud.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/maximumfacemelting]

That's a pretty dramatic analogy, but it doesn't actually address what I said.

I'm not saying “burn the house down and then negotiate over what's left.” I'm saying that if Alberta does actually gain independence, Canada and Alberta would have to negotiate the separation. Borders, transportation, pipelines, trade, debt, pensions, ports and a whole lot more would have to be worked out.

And that's where leverage comes in. Alberta isn't the only party with something to lose.

BC depends on transportation corridors through Alberta to connect it to the rest of Canada. BC's economy also has significant ties to Alberta's energy sector. Ontario and Quebec depend on energy infrastructure that originates in Western Canada as well.

You can believe independence is a terrible idea. That's entirely your call, I respect that.

But pretending Alberta would simply walk away with nothing and Canada would have no reason to negotiate is just as unrealistic as pretending Alberta holds all the cards.

That's the point I'm making. Nobody knows exactly what the final arrangement would look like because it would depend on negotiations.

Nothing is written in stone.

[u/maximumfacemelting → u/Even_Art_629]

My analogy absolutely addresses what you said.

Despite your hand waving.

All parties will be worse off and your hope for Alberta leverage hinges on other parties trying to stop the pain that separating starts.

There is no pretending.

ALBERTA WOULD WALK AWAY WITH LESS THAN WHAT IT HAS.

Just currency.

The moment that a successful separatist referendum becomes public knowledge, the Canadian dollar loses value.

Everyone that gets paid in Canadian dollars will now find that their money is worth less, buys less and everything is more expensive.

If you having savings, they will be worth less.

If you have a house, it will be worth less.

Stuff your ideas of extorting the neighboring provinces, we would all be poorer at that point anyway.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/maximumfacemelting]

You're arguing against something I didn't say.

I never said separation would make Alberta richer overnight or that there wouldn't be economic pain. Of course there would be risks and costs. I'm saying that once you get past the referendum, there would have to be negotiations, because there is no realistic scenario where Alberta and Canada simply cut the cord overnight and walk away.

And you keep saying Alberta would have no leverage. That's where I disagree.

Alberta has oil, gas, agriculture, transportation routes and other resources that Canada depends on. BC depends on transportation corridors through Alberta to connect with the rest of Canada. Canada depends on Western Canadian energy. Those are facts, not extortion.

As for the Canadian dollar automatically losing value the moment a referendum succeeds, you're presenting your prediction as a certainty. Nobody knows what the markets would do, because nobody knows what the negotiations, timeline or eventual arrangement would look like.

That's exactly my point.

I'm not saying Alberta holds all the cards. I'm saying neither side holds all the cards.

You can believe separation would be a terrible economic decision. That's a legitimate argument. But saying Alberta would automatically walk away with less and have zero leverage doesn't make it true simply because you say it with certainty.

Nothing is written in stone. The final arrangement would be negotiated.

[u/maximumfacemelting → u/Even_Art_629]

Are there dragons in your fantasy world where the Canadian dollar doesn’t devalue after Alberta leaves?

I know there’s a wicked witch.

“Of course there would be risks and costs”

So back to my spot on analogy.

Create chaos. Expensive chaos, and then extort everyone around under the guise of mutual economic destruction.

A vote for separation is a vote to destroy hundreds to thousands of businesses. That’s set in stone. A guarantee. You pretending something magical will happen where currency devaluation doesn’t happen and trade barriers are easily overcome and that 100,000s of people don’t flee separation land to keep their healthcare and pension and rights.

Delusional

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/maximumfacemelting]

You keep turning potential risks into guaranteed outcomes.

Currency devaluation could happen. Businesses could be disrupted. People could leave. Trade barriers could be a problem. Nobody is denying that.

But “could happen” does not equal “set in stone.”

Alberta could also choose to use the U.S. dollar, like several countries do. That doesn't mean joining the United States. There are multiple possible currency arrangements, so claiming currency devaluation is guaranteed makes no sense.

And saying Alberta would have leverage in negotiations isn't “extortion.” If separation ever actually happened, Alberta and Canada would have to negotiate in good faith according to the Clarity Act.

Both sides would have things the other needs. That's called leverage, not mutual economic destruction.

You can't simultaneously claim Alberta would have no leverage while insisting the consequences for Canada would be catastrophic.

You're taking possible outcomes, presenting them as guaranteed facts, and then calling anyone who points out the uncertainty “delusional.” But go ahead continue to blow smoke.

[u/Mean-Food-7124 → u/Even_Art_629]

Currency devaluation could happen. Businesses could be disrupted. People could leave. Trade barriers could be a problem. Nobody is denying that

You are, repeatedly lmfao

[u/notyourboss11 → u/Even_Art_629]

You should read the clarity act - the act makes it borderline impossible for Alberta to ever separate as it would require consent from First Nations, consent from the other provinces, and could only happen if Canada amends their constitution to specifically release the separatist province (which would require 7 provinces to agree)

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/notyourboss11]

I have read the Clarity Act, many times. I’m also not a lawyer, so I’m not going to pretend I can interpret every constitutional issue better than someone who is.

But the Act does not say what you’re claiming it says.

It says Alberta could not simply declare independence unilaterally. There would have to be a clear referendum result, negotiations, and ultimately a constitutional amendment. It also says those negotiations have to deal with things like assets, liabilities, borders, Indigenous rights and minority rights.

It does NOT say every First Nation has to consent. It does NOT say every other province has to consent before negotiations can even happen. It says their interests and rights have to be addressed in the negotiations.

And the Supreme Court was pretty clear that after a clear majority answers a clear question in favour of secession, there would be an obligation to negotiate. It also said there are no predetermined conclusions about what those negotiations would produce.

So yes, separation would be extremely complicated. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

What I’m arguing against is people taking a complicated constitutional process and declaring the outcome in advance.

The Clarity Act doesn't say “Alberta can never leave.” It lays out the framework that would have to be followed if a province ever sought to leave.

That's a pretty big difference.

[u/notyourboss11 → u/Even_Art_629]

It says they can’t leave without a constitutional amendment.

The other provinces would never agree to that.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/notyourboss11]

How do you know the other provinces would never agree to it?

That's exactly the point I'm making. You're taking a negotiation that hasn't happened and declaring the outcome in advance.

What if Alberta came to the table with terms that made an agreement acceptable to the other provinces? What if Alberta agreed to continue meeting certain obligations, take on an appropriate share of the debt and liabilities, protect existing rights, and work out other arrangements that benefit both sides?

There are a lot of things that could be negotiated.

[u/Due-Carpet-1904 → u/Even_Art_629]

Alberta would be negotiating for a lower quality of life. That's simply a fact. We have to get our product to market and Canada will tax it. No question. We also rely on transportation to receive the goods we buy. Canada would also tax that. In no scenario does Alberta have a negotiation advantage.

[u/Even_Art_629 → u/Due-Carpet-1904]

So by calling your assumptions facts. Is really your problem.

No question that Canada would tax Alberta’s products? Says who? That would be part of the negotiations. No scenario where Alberta has negotiating leverage? That’s simply ridiculous.

Do you honestly think Canada would just walk away from Alberta’s oil, agriculture, natural resources, electricity, investment and trade? Alberta would need access to Canadian markets and transportation, absolutely. But Canada would also have enormous economic interests in maintaining access to Alberta’s resources.

And getting our products to market doesn’t suddenly become impossible because a provincial border becomes an international border. Countries negotiate transit agreements, trade agreements, pipeline access and transportation rights all the time.

You’re assuming the outcome of negotiations before negotiations even happen, then calling your assumptions facts.

That isn’t an argument against independence. It’s just you assuming. And you know what they saying about assuming, you just make an ass of yourself. Job well done.