Für Danielle Smith und die Separatisten aus Alberta gibt es nach der Gerichtsniederlage keinen klaren Weg für ein Referendum
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/for-danielle-smith-and-alberta-separatists-no-clear-path-left-for-referendum-after-court-loss-9.7200286
6 Kommentare
>When past Quebec premiers scheduled independence votes, it was because they believed in the cause. Smith says she opposes separatism, and has professed she wants the petition signatories’ wishes to be respected. Critics, however, will accuse her of calling a referendum for the sake of political self-preservation.
>
>But if Smith does call the referendum herself, and then a third judge quashes it, would that pair of events rankle both the majority of Albertans who don’t want to separate, as well as the majority of her supporters who do?
>
>[…]
>
>When the premier announces success on [pipelines] Friday, she’ll likely repeat her refrain that this proves Canada works — even if one week later, Smith opens the door wider to Albertans who are convinced Canada is failed and must break apart.
Food for thought: does the UCP caucus survive Smith calling a referendum on her own initiative unscathed, or do the Scott Sinclairs of the party start having second (third) thoughts?
Of course there is a clear path. An appeal if there is an error in fact or law, as exists for anyone who appeals anything at the lower court. The other .. she looks at both petitions and concludes that this is an important question to Albertans. Then she introduces a provincial referendum under Alberta’s referendum legislation. The key difference with the second option is that the result of that referendum isnt legally binding, but it could be a useful measure in ascertaining the for vs against support percentages.
What *will* happen is racists will use the decision to attack First Nations for the crime of being here first and signing legal agreements they expect settlers to honour.
Sure there is. Put the Forever Canadian petition question to a vote. That petition collected a third more signatures in a third kess time than the separatists effort, but the UCP has done everything to ignore it and it’s wirked. You almost never hear it mentioned in the media anymore.
Smith got away with this referendum since it was thought to be a citizen-initiative.
if Smith herself calls the referendum, how can she say she is against separation? how can you say you’re for a united (albeit stronger Alberta) Canada and then initiate a referendum to leave Canada? it doesn’t make sense
I think this presupposes that Danielle Smith won’t just do it anyway if it suits her. Much like American checks and balances, Canadian checks and balances assume that everyone is acting in good faith and are ill-equipped to combat those who are not. (If anything, it might be worse for us in this case, since preventing such a referendum would require what is effectively an overthrow of the Albertan government.)