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”.
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.
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.
It seems manipulative and disingenuous. “Sign this if you support AB staying in Canada” when in reality it’s “by signing this, if enough people sign, the question of voting on AB separation will go on the referendum ballot next year and this will be how the question is phrased”. They’re preying on patriotism to trigger a referendum.
Absolutely not.