Western Canadian secession rumors on the web (should we)

Post Reply New Topic

Also, in the case of Iceland, the government was decisive enough that they managed to pull things together reasonably well and even avoid a Greek-style debt crisis. Somehow the Social-Democrats actually managed to get along with the International Monetary Fund long enough to negotiate a deal that didn't involve destroying the welfare state.

That would make sense if the past five years hadn't have gone the way it has, worldwide, economically. I have very little faith in governments to police people who manipulate wealth unethically. On the other hand, I have a lot of faith in the Harper Government to police anybody who stands in its way. So the government does matter, in a way, but it depends on how you look at it. Of course the guy holding the guns and laws is relevant, but is he as relevant as the guy who is paying his salary/lobbying him?



Because banking regulations in the US and Canada is exactly what I was talking about, not what *completely non-existent, speculative governments of secessionist states and provinces* would probably be like

this i would love... as then my home state (WA) ... and my second country (yay dual citizenship) could become a single country :p

Well, let's be clear, Canada's relatively unscathed emergence from the banking crisis was not due to the Harper government--it was the Chrétien government, and Paul Martin's decision making at Finance in the late 90's that prevented mergers among the big six, and the dilution of banking and insurance activities. CMHC policies that prohibited overleveraging are older than either government.



Banking regulation is important--but not half so important as monetary policy. And the reality is that no province has the wherewithal to monetize its economy. Realistically, no secessionist province or provinces would be large enough to fund a free floating currency of their own.

If Alberta chose to pull up stakes, it would be obliged to: 1) retain the Canadian dollar and forego any ability to participate in its management (one of Iceland's options); 2) issue a currency pegged to a free trading currency (the Hongkong approach); or attempt to negotiate admission to a Central Bank. But I don't see much likelihood that the Bank of Canada or the Federal Reserve would be in the least interested in offerring outsiders seats at the table.

That's a good question. I haven't lived in New England or visited the Maritimes, so I can't really say. Joel Garreau, the guy who wrote Nine Nations of North America, suggested that you have a similar culture to the New England states, though like someone said, I'm sure most people in that region would resent being subject to the whims of Boston. In Cascadia, British Columbia would still maintain a great degree of power and would be less spoken over than its current situation where it is influenced by Ontario. In the case of British Columbia and the Prairies, the Americans to the south of there in many ways have more in common with their neighboring Canadians than they do with Americans in other regions, at least in my opinion.

236 years of free trade with the United States hasn't exactly done Maine a huge amount of good. Let's revive the Republic of Madawaska and invite Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island in.

So, the problem with the prairie union would be that the Lakota Oyote would be the Quebec of the plains/prairies (whatever the hell you want to call, it's one big grassland), although I guess the wheat board would be stronger (I guess). Does anyone know if it is possible to combine all of the independence parties (for whoever wants to secede from Canada and the states) to form one big secessionist party to represent all who are seceding? I think it would be a bigger message, but what would you think?

I think such a drive to unite the secessionists (that sounds weird) would be used as a cover for destroying the US, Canada and Mexico and uniting them under a "looser" association of the North American Union that would not really be in the best interests of most inhabitants

The way I was seeing it wasn't the NAU, but more like a way to see that no new nation would suddenly get attacked for doing what they are allowed to do (no matter how much politicians b***h). Besides, there isn't a single secessionist party (that I'm aware of) that has any seats in province/state level right now. I was also thinking of a convention-like party (like vermont and the league of the south in the states, only they haven't formed a party yet).

Will North Dakota stop f*cking with our water systems if we join 'em in a Prairie Union?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/ ... ables.html

from what I read (correct me if I'm wrong), I think North Dakota is f*****g themselves over before the water reaches to Lake Winnepeg. Oh well, f**k the NDP (they've contributed to bad government in bc for years).

I'd just like to thank my NDP government for some of the lowest auto-pac rates in Canada, for keeping Winnipeg one of the most affordable cities (perhaps the most affordable city) in Western Canada, and for the second lowest provincial unemployment rate in the country.