5d ago

Question about the AB petition to stay in Canada

It's my understanding that a referendum petition is about the phrasing of the question that's presented to go on the referendum ballot.

The pro-Canada group "won" the right to petition for their question to go on the ballot as they submitted before the anti-Canada traitors could. Basically, stay in Canada vs leave Canada.

Am I just an idiot, or is the safest thing for AB to do is not sign regardless of who is asking? If this petition gets enough sigs all it means is that this will be the question asked on the ballot for referendum instead of the leave question right? But if it fails, there won't be a referendum at all.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me this is being proposed as a petition to stay in Canada, but it's really a petition to trigger a referendum with "stay in Canada" as the question instead of "leave Canada".

35 comments

The "stay in Canada" petition is not a trick. Do you really think they would phrase thier referendum question in a way that would risk having a negative result be interpreted as a call for separation? Even if they did leave that door open, I think this petition has showed that there is overwhelming support for staying in Canada, and I'm not worried.
The separatist movement is little more than a phantom created by Danielle Smith to use as leverage against Ottawa.
I believe the fight is over who gets to control how the question is worded, because the question can only be asked once in a referendum.
If it's the UCP or one of their crony entities that get to control it, they will attempt to have the question be like: "Do you believe in Alberta being a separate country and if not do you not believe in Alberta as a Province in the country of Canada?" Yes or No. Which will lead to everyone scratching their heads, because both are basically saying the same thing. Much like their policy surveys, where no matter what you answer, it leads to a predetermined conclusion. It's basically the hallmark of the traitorous and christofacist UCP at this point. They hate us, and simply want to legitimize their prosecution of us and have total control over our resources, which are significant. It'll also quickly fall under American control.
If this Canada first group controls the question, it'll be something like: "Do you think Alberta should separate from Canada," and I mean that's a predetermined conclusion too, because it's believed that less than 20% of citizens actually want to leave. And even if they didn't want to stay, at least it's an honest question that won't be tricking people.
So I mean act according to your wishes. We only get one shot at defending this though.
- The two questions have already been defined. They are not going to change if they get enough signatures and it comes to a vote.
- The question from the petition that the Alberta Prosperity Project is proposing is "Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?" which is currently being held up in the courts, while the Forever Canadian's currently ongoing petition is "Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?"
  There is currently no ongoing petition where signing it indicates a desire for Alberta to leave Canada.
  
  Exactly that though: Do you agree that the Province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and cease to be a province in Canada?. If you answer yes to that, obviously we should cease to be a province and become a sovereign country. If you answer no to that, you will not be agreeing that the province of Canada shall become a sovereign country, and ceasing to be a province in Canada.
  Sounds pretty straight forward, right? I'm sure something like 80% of the vote will be no. Except then they'll try and mount a legal challenge to twist that around on us. Because you've answered no to the sovereign country part, but the second part where ceasing to be a province in Canada is a bit more ubiquitous. You could be saying no I do not want to be a sovereign country, but you are not clearly stating yes or no to being a province in Canada. It's implied, sure (with the and), but implied in such a question opens this up to court challenges (and I'm sure a bunch of foreign interference). You could be saying no I do not agree that the province of Alberta shall become a sovereign country and I think it should cease to be a province in Canada. Or in other words, hello USA! That'll be the argument. Yes its ridiculous, but it could be a valid fear.
  Whereas, Do you agree that Alberta Should remain in Canada? Well that's a yay or a nay.
  
  But both are asking to sign a petition to call for a referendum on separation, and fighting for how the question is asked right? So if either were to get enough signatures, the fundamental result is the same, there's a referendum.
  Signing the stay petition is still a signature that goes toward calling a referendum, correct?
- But if we don't sign either way it's worded then we don't have to defend anything.
  It seems to me that this is an effort to create a "Brexit" scenario. Enough people sign the stay petition thus putting separation up for referendum. When the time comes people say "it obviously won't pass, I won't bother voting".
  
  You don't have to sign anything. But sign or not sign, this is almost for sure going to referendum. It's creating a brexit-like scenario regardless of what happens here.
  I'm also pretty sure turnout on this one will be pretty high. If it's not, well this province and their citizens deserves to be the new Puerto Rico. A territory that will just get raided without any say or any economic reward (except for the traitors who swung the door open).
I believe the question is being asked in earnest. I listened to the podcast the breakdown (the guy who’s broke the story by getting foips to shed light on aish scandal) he had the maker of the question on and he said his rationale is to make the question plain so as to not confuse voters. Polling is indicating the majority of Albertans want to stay so he intends to force it now, before they have a chance to give a bad question. I feel like I will sign it and trust we can vote to put this issue to bed.
If the "stay in Canada" petition gets enough signatures, that will be the question on the ballot. If it doesn't get enough signatures and the "don't stay in Canada" petition does, that will the question on the ballot. Bear in mind that because of the rules change by the UCP, the "don't stay" petition has a lower threshold. The question for the "stay" petition is "Do you agree that Alberta should remain in Canada?" If you agree, please sign. Every signature counts.
- But the question isn't "do you agree AB should stay in Canada". The question is " by signing this you agree the question of separation on the ballot for the referendum that would then get called is 'do you agree AB should stay in Canada'".
  If you don't sign, there is no referendum at all. I feel like labeling the same question as a positive instead of a negative is an effort to dupe people into signing it out of patriotism, thus putting it on the ballot for referendum.
  
  No, the question is exactly "Do you agree that Alberta should stay in Canada". I am an official canvasser for the petition. It is a mistake to think that if you don't sign there won't be a referendum.
  
  Thomas Lukaszuk certainly could be lying about the reasons why he submitted the petition. He was the Deputy Premier of the PCs after all, so, there's that.
But if it fails
Thatd be an extremely foolish thing to hedge your bets on, it very well could get enough signatures.
- What I'm saying is Albertans shouldn't sign so it does fail, right? Even though it's a positive way to frame the question, the petition is really "sign this if you want a referendum" isn't it?
  
  You have no control over what other people will do. You only have control over your own actions. Please sign.
  
  You seem hell bent on trying to frame this as "yeah but its totally gonna fail"
  Thats a dumb assumption to make, it's very much possible the "bad" referendum succeeds, so hedging your bets on it failing is just a dumb idea.
  the petition is really “sign this if you want a referendum” isn’t it?
  No, its "Sign this to at least make the referendum thats pretty likely to happen at least not have such a poorly framed question"
  I would assume it's going to happen, it's wishful thinking to assume it wont.
Neither petition is likely to get enough signatures. I'd be coloured surprised if the pro-confederation one passed the threshold. However, the signatures on the pro-confederation petition are likely going to be a symbolic gesture instead of anything that amounts to anything.
I'm not saying that to be a bummer or whatnot, but at the end of the day, the purpose of the pro-confederation petition is simply to stall the efforts of those in support of the pro-separation petition to follow. It stalls Smith's efforts to cater to the more fringe portion of the UCP base, and allows a new angle of attack by her opponents. It's one thing to say what Smith is doing is wrong, but to say that she's also been ineffective is something that resonates more with the electorate. People hate the status quo, but the unfortunate reality is that a decent chunk of them will give benefit of doubt to those actively making things worse simply because they're doing something.
It also traps Smith into the bed she made for herself. She's closer to the Wildrose portion of the party in terms of the merger, and she needs to hold together a party of those who are traditional Progressive Conservatives (think Lougheed types) that are socially progressive and fiscally conservative, Wildrose types that are social and fiscal conservatives, and this new base farther right than she is that are outright separatists.
Danielle has admitted the only reason the referendum is happening is because she fears a party split. Make it seem to the fringe that you're doing something they like, and you stabilise support with them at what was likely seen as a temporary cost of support from the more PC wing of the party. She fears the likelihood of a party split causing an NDP win more than she does with the province separating, the former is more likely as it's what happened in 2015.
By stalling the separation petition, the pro-confederation petition stirs up UPC party dynamics a tad. While I don't think this will cause the party to split, there will be a lot of tension brewing amongst the more moderate base in particular, which gives the NDP an opportunity to pick up more potential swing votes.
- She's closer to the Wildrose portion of the party in terms of the merger.
  In the sense that she was the actual leader of the Wildrose party.
- Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't pursuing the stay signatures still result in a referendum on separation? The safest thing to do is not sign either way, and there won't be a vote to separate at all. Everything I've read about it seems to mislead people into signing a petition to stay in Canada when it's actually a petition to call for a referendum.
  
  This is key: no, if we get enough signatures, the question "do you agree that Alberta should stay in Canada" goes to a vote, and regardless of the result, there is no second referendum as a result.
  
  Honestly good point. Wish I could say more on that, but reality is I'm actually not sure.

35 comments