Quote:
Originally Posted by BoLevi
Let's cause a massive recession in Alberta, to avoid a recession in Ontario. What could possibly be any negative consequences from this plan?
If your interest is actually national cohesion and unity, you would support Smith's activities. Because nothing would be more effective at boosting the Alberta population's attitude towards greater autonomy (separatism is such an ugly word), than the consequences of a Team Canada approach to the tariff negotiations.
|
It isn’t an either or scenario. The best outcome for all Party’s including the US is No Tarrifs. Taking nuclear options off the board and not negotiating as a united front undermines this task.
If the end result is Tarrifs on everything but Oil and Gas Alberta loses. Alberta also doesn’t have authority to concede or do anything. Alberta can’t trade Dairy for Oil. So by undermining the Canadian negotiating you increase the likelihood of negative outcomes and increase the likelihood of the feds trading something in Alberta’s interest for something in RoCs interest.
Given the nature of confederation accepting everything you say is true Smith is undermining the interest of Alberta because we are tied to Canada. Smith is increasing the likelihood of Ottawa screwing over Alberta and increasing the likelihood of a negative Canadian outcome bs the US while doing absolutely nothing in improving Alberta’s situation.
Like saying Hey Trump don’t Tarrif O+G because I will sue if they try to shut off o+g doesn’t help Alberta. It gives away leverage on our ability to fight back.
Even on the goal of negotiating an energy carve out She has undermined her negotiating position by not presenting a united front.