American Politics 4.0 - Orangeyou Glad He’s Back?

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Canada and Alberta do not share identical interests. Sometimes they share some common interests. But I see not reason that Alberta should put Canada's interest above Alberta's, unless doing so also benefits Alberta. The other provinces and the feds are also counterparties to Alberta.

Sure, that is all true and obvious. Does anyone here trust Danielle Smith to have calculating all of the incredibly complex costs and benefits to Albertans weakening Canada's bargaining position so that she can try (and fail) to convince Trump not to place tariffs on Canadian energy exports to the United States? (spoiler: maybe only you). Because that is what is required before embarking on such a dangerous path.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Maybe. But that's unclear legally and almost certainly would require a lot of legal wrangling at the level of the constitution, as Smith has already pointed out. .

What are you basing these statements on?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by dino7c

Canada's one bullet in the chamber...lets take that off the table

It's a bullet Canada would like to use, it's unclear (and unlikely) that it is, in fact, Canada's bullet to use.

[Coach]

This is like if Canada was a band. There's 13 members of the band and Alberta is the lead singer. There's members playing keyboards and bongos and drums and guitars, but a most crucial piece is the singer. Now the whole band's trying to negotiate for a good deal with the record company that works for everyone, and instead of being a team player, the singer is going to the record company and saying "hey why don't you give the rest of these bums a 25% cut, I make an extra 10% and you keep the rest?"

Sure, maybe the singer has the leverage and even the right to do that. But the rest of the band is going to tell them to eat s***. Don't be throwing your hands up like it's no big deal. But they cap themselves at that rate, are forever on their knees to the big boss, and maybe they find out pretty fast that they're not so good without the rest of the band.

[CroFlames]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

I'm only being edgy insofar as being realistic is being edgy.

Canada and Alberta do not share identical interests. Sometimes they share some common interests. But I see not reason that Alberta should put Canada's interest above Alberta's, unless doing so also benefits Alberta. The other provinces and the feds are also counterparties to Alberta.

Canada is in no way constructed as a country in terms of "same team". So I think people should dispose of that idea since it is not reality.

[Fuzz]

And if Trump had 13 Premiers all going down fishing their own interests, Trump would probably say "what the hell is going on in Canada? I have all these people yapping at me who have no power to negotiate anything. Why do I want to talk to them? Give me the person in charge. The rest of you can go away."

This is just another case of Albertans believing the delusion they have convinced themselves that we are somehow special because we lucked out on resources. Because we lucked out, we should also lord that over the rest of our country, and act like petulant children any time we don't get everything going our way. Like I said, pathetic.

[Wormius]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

It's a bullet Canada would like to use, it's unclear (and unlikely) that it is, in fact, Canada's bullet to use.

And the issue with Canada using it is…?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Makarov

Sure, that is all true and obvious. Does anyone here trust Danielle Smith to have calculating all of the incredibly complex costs and benefits to Albertans weakening Canada's bargaining position so that she can try (and fail) to convince Trump not to place tariffs on Canadian energy exports to the United States? (spoiler: maybe only you). Because that is what is required before embarking on such a dangerous path.

This is a useful take and useful things to consider.

On the dangerous path: we are, through no choice of our own, on a dangerous path regardless.

On her trustworthiness and competence to pull it off? Relative to other politicians, I think she is more likely to succeed.

On the other hand, I don't think she is doing anything outlandish. Almost any other path she takes looks like she is not advocating/negotiating on behalf of Alberta. People don't like the fact that in so doing, she isn't looking out for the best interest of Canada. Don't hate the player, hate the game. It's not Smith's fault that Canada is so poorly constructed as a democracy that in-fighting, back biting and antagonism is the norm between provinces. Canada is the furthest thing from a collaborative construct. It's maybe uncomfortable for people to have this shown to them by Trump and Smith, but here we are.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by Wormius

And the issue with Canada using it is…?

To play both sides a bit, as I'm definitely not down with AB going solo like that, we can't really use it because we spent 20 years shooting ourselves in the foot not building infrastructure to get it to other customers. The 1st Trump presidency should have been a solid warning that the US is not a reliable sole customer. Nor should they be.

[kermitology]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Doug Ford mentioned potentially just shutting the electricity off if tariffs go through. Several states rely on electricity generated in Canada and their consumers actually pay less for it than Canadians. It would be hilarious if the minute Trump implements the tariffs, the lights go out in the northeast U.S.

I don't think Ford actually goes through with it though. There must be a contract in place.

Who cares if there's a contract in place. There's a trade agreement in place currently and Trump is dismissing that to threaten economic warfare with tariffs.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

Maybe. But that's unclear legally and almost certainly would require a lot of legal wrangling at the level of the constitution, as Smith has already pointed out.

What's unclear legally?

Duties may be removed and reimposed(2) The Governor in Council may by proclamation remove and reimpose any export duty.

• R.S., c. E-16, s. 4

Marginal note:Prohibiting export

• 5 (1) The Governor in Council may by regulation prohibit the exportation from Canada of
  • (a) petroleum in its crude or partly manufactured state; and
  • (b) pulpwood of the variety, kind, place of origin or having the particulars of identification or ownership or production described in the regulation.

[calgarygeologist]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Doug Ford mentioned potentially just shutting the electricity off if tariffs go through. Several states rely on electricity generated in Canada and their consumers actually pay less for it than Canadians. It would be hilarious if the minute Trump implements the tariffs, the lights go out in the northeast U.S.

I don't think Ford actually goes through with it though. There must be a contract in place.

And Premiers Legault and Furey said they won't shut off electricity to the US as retaliation to tariffs.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Coach

To play both sides a bit, as I'm definitely not down with AB going solo like that, we can't really use it because we spent 20 years shooting ourselves in the foot not building infrastructure to get it to other customers. The 1st Trump presidency should have been a solid warning that the US is not a reliable sole customer. Nor should they be.

This x1000.

In fact, the single most effective thing that Canada can and should do, is immediately create a resource corridor from Alberta to each coast. Forget export taxes on oil, threaten the Americans with an ability to supply China and Europe with all of our oil and gas products (and mineral, etc). That would get their attention right quick.

Of course, that would also require a completely reworked environmental process, a removal of First Nations veto power over development (via endless red tape), forcing Quebec to have pipelines, etc.

All things the Canadians view as abhorrent because they enjoy congratulating themselves on all manner of luxury beliefs. All the while, they gave Trump the big stick. Congrats Canadians, your naivete is coming home to roost.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

This x1000.

In fact, the single most effective thing that Canada can and should do, is immediately create a resource corridor from Alberta to each coast. Forget export taxes on oil, threaten the Americans with an ability to supply China and Europe with all of our oil and gas products (and mineral, etc). That would get their attention right quick.

Of course, that would also require a completely reworked environmental process, a removal of First Nations veto power over development (via endless red tape), forcing Quebec to have pipelines, etc.

All things the Canadians view as abhorrent because they enjoy congratulating themselves on all manner of luxury beliefs. All the while, they gave Trump the big stick. Congrats Canadians, your naivete is coming home to roost.

Yeah, sure. But none of these are good reasons to bone the rest of the country because you want to be sad panda about it. Get on the team or get off. We'll see how you get your oil to market to anyone but the US without ocean access. This is exactly what Trump wants. A bunch of infighting so we f*** over ourselves and he wins. It's his entire MO in everything he does.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Coach

To play both sides a bit, as I'm definitely not down with AB going solo like that, we can't really use it because we spent 20 years shooting ourselves in the foot not building infrastructure to get it to other customers. The 1st Trump presidency should have been a solid warning that the US is not a reliable sole customer. Nor should they be.

This was Alberta's own doing, really.

Fought against pipelines to the East 'because NEP bad' and didn't want to lose a more lucrative customer.

Then NAFTA came along which saw Alberta celebrate a guarantee of delivery to the US which precluded any push to get export capacity anywhere else for well over a decade. By the time Energy East rolled around as an idea, nobody out East wanted a pipeline anymore.

Alberta's resource policy has always been about selling stuff to the US, it was the Rest of Canada that once tried to change that, but Alberta was having none of it.

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

What's unclear legally?

Duties may be removed and reimposed(2) The Governor in Council may by proclamation remove and reimpose any export duty.

• R.S., c. E-16, s. 4

Marginal note:Prohibiting export

• 5 (1) The Governor in Council may by regulation prohibit the exportation from Canada of
  • (a) petroleum in its crude or partly manufactured state; and
  • (b) pulpwood of the variety, kind, place of origin or having the particulars of identification or ownership or production described in the regulation.

An attempt to use this is what would kick off the national unity crisis.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

An attempt to use this is what would kick off the national unity crisis.

So what? A unity crisis is the country's natural state.

"Oh no, an Alberta premier is complaining about the federal government. We must be in an unprecedented crisis!!!"

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Coach

Yeah, sure. But none of these are good reasons to bone the rest of the country because you want to be sad panda about it. Get on the team or get off. We'll see how you get your oil to market to anyone but the US without ocean access. This is exactly what Trump wants. A bunch of infighting so we f*** over ourselves and he wins. It's his entire MO in everything he does.

I don't think Alberta is being sad panda about anything. The people getting all excited about Alberta doing its thing is the rest of Canada.

Alberta's trade relationship with the US is vastly more important than it's trade relationship with the rest of Canada. The US has been a reliable, consistent customer for Alberta's exports. As for the rest of Canada? With friends like that, who needs enemies?

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by BoLevi

An attempt to use this is what would kick off the national unity crisis.

Only because our premier is who she is. We don't have to be this way, as a province. It's only because of people like you and her that we are. Can you maybe try being less sucky?

[BoLevi]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

So what? A unity crisis is the country's natural state.

"Oh no, an Alberta premier is complaining about the federal government. We must be in an unprecedented crisis!!!"

Maybe it's the same this time. Maybe it's not. We'll see.