A related issue is whether, or to what extent, a seceded entity can itself be subject to secession. This concern came up in Quebec when Cree and other groups suggested they'd drop out of post-separation Quebec and ''rejoin'' Canada. Quebec separatists were outraged at the thought of First Nations and pro-Federalist geographical areas turning their new entity into ''Swiss cheese''. It is highly likely that Alberta separatists would face the same challenges and take an equally dim view.

▲

madcaptenor 5 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Another case: when Brexit happened, IIRC some people in Scotland were suggesting secession from the UK post-Brexit so they could rejoin the EU.

▲

kubafu 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

In a parallel universe - UK never left EU as Scotland, Northern Ireland, and City of London kicked out England and Wales out of UK, and saved everyone years of turmoil.

/sarcasm

▲

mpweiher 5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

With strong justification, as one of the reasons their earlier bid for secession from the UK was squashed was the argument that secession from the UK would also automatically kick them out of the EU.

▲

kevin_thibedeau 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

That is still in play as the failure of Brexit solidifies. They can follow the lead of Ireland and the arrangements for the land crossing with N.I.

▲

joe_mamba 5 hours ago | parent [-]

>That is still in play as the failure of Brexit solidifies.

To be fair, the failure is on the UK governance itself, not on Brexit. Other major EU economies like France and Germany have seen similar economic trajectories since 2020 as the post-Brexit UK, despite them still being in the EU. The post-2020 Covid and Ukraine crisis are difficult to isolate from Brexit to know if it's just Brexit alone or the world economic situation fucking everyone regardless since then.

Sure, Brexit probably didn't help, but looking at where Germany is now, I feel like UK handled the cold-turkey exit from the union far better than anyone expected.

▲

Aachen 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Sure, the country didn't go back to be a developing nation, but "similar economic trajectories" leaves a lot of margin for how much better or worse it could have been. Purely economically, about 2-5% of GDP growth seems to have been left on the table, and in terms of human cost it's really hard to say anything positive about closing international borders between similar and allied countries

▲

melesian 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Every single one of the predictions of the Brexiters has been exploded: migration, taxation, funding the NHS, better public services etc.

The cost of implementing customs controls ALONE amounted to more than the sum total of UK contributions to the EU budget from day 1 of the UK joining the common market. The losses to the UK economy have been staggering -- up to 8% of GDP on a recurring basis. And no the UK didn't have a cold-turkey exit from the EU, that would have been a "no deal" exit.

But... but... splutter Brexiters, "look at Germany". Always looking at growth rates and cherrypicking data. Germany has had a massive increase in energy costs, far greater than experienced in the UK.

Go on: tell us Brexit is a mere "flesh wound"

Brexit has been a bone-crushing failure and repeated polls show a majority of the electorate knows it. A toxic minority of older voters, the UK's MAGA cohort, is ready to double down, and all they will achieve if they get anywhere near govt is the breakup of the UK, wihch of course many younger non-English voters support. Either way it's been a quite boon to the EU.

	▲	joe_mamba 23 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		>Every single one of the predictions of the Brexiters has been exploded: migration, taxation, funding the NHS, better public services etc. Every single one of those went downhill in all of major EU economies since 2020 too. Considering UK had Brexit on top, the fallout seems pretty well managed. >Always looking at growth rates and cherrypicking data. We're looking at numbers we can somewhat objectively measure to compare. GDP number is cold and soulless, it doesn't care if you GDP went down because of a flood and your neighbors because of a hurricane, it's still gonna be GDP vs GDP regardless of who fucked up what.

▲

5 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[deleted]

▲

theeyescanner 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

[dead]

▲

dismalaf 5 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Quebec separatists were outraged at the thought of First Nations and pro-Federalist geographical areas turning their new entity into ''Swiss cheese''. It is highly likely that Alberta separatists would face the same challenges and take an equally dim view.

This is complicated by the fact that First Nations themselves are highly stratified. They receive billions in dollars from the federal government with zero oversight so corruption is rampant.

So what happens if a majority of First Nations people want to separate but the chiefs in charge of a particular band don't?

It's like the pipeline issue in British Columbia... Bands and their elected officials voted to allow pipelines, then some "hereditary chiefs" associated with environmentalist groups convinced courts that their opinion carries the same weight as elected chiefs and the court blocked pipeline projects.

In Canada there's layers of un-elected government officials and activist judges who seem more concerned with getting federal funding (aka. kickbacks aka. bribes) than any sort of democratic notions.

▲

reaperducer 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

un-elected government officials and activist judges

Does "activist judge" mean the same thing in Canada that it does in the United States: "Any judge who rules against my position?"

Also:

dismalaf

Name checks out.

	▲	Nicook 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		That's not what it means, but go off. Although yes it is generally used pejoratively, and if you are using the term, its for a rhetorical effect.

▲

1attice 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> In Canada there's layers of un-elected government officials and activist judges who seem more concerned with getting federal funding (aka. kickbacks aka. bribes) than any sort of democratic notions.

Citation needed. Good luck

▲

llm_nerd 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

> So what happens if a majority of First Nations people want to separate but the chiefs in charge of a particular band don't?

It seems you're implying something here that is comically ridiculous. Like some sort of crocodile-tear for natives who are unheard, but thankfully you've got their back.

Natives overwhelmingly reject both Quebec and Alberta separatism. Quebec is old news so I'll ignore that, so instead lets stick to Alberta.

The Alberta separatism movement (~30%, which is about the same as the MAGA base in the US, and they are largely interchangeable and driven by the same racism and stupidity, and the MAGA base is hugely the reason this is all happening, grotesquely interfering in Canada) is overwhelmingly filled with right-wing, racist, backwards hicks. The idea of being dragged along with the goals of those people is utterly orthogonal to the best interest of natives, for blatantly obvious reasons.

>Bands and their elected officials voted to allow pipelines, then some "hereditary chiefs" associated with environmentalist groups convinced courts that their opinion carries the same weight as elected chiefs and the court blocked pipeline projects

You mean the pipeline that is currently fully built and operating at triple capacity? THAT pipeline? Or the many other pipelines that have been built, where resource extraction is higher than it has been in history?

Or maybe you're talking about the coast to coast pipeline that would have been built under the national energy program that Alberta not only rejected, but they use as the basis of their rage to this day (while simultaneously bashing their fists about not having a coast to coast pipeline).

▲

cf100clunk 4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[flagged]

	▲	gxt 4 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Your comment is nothing more than a broad ethnic slur Have you considered that it may not be an insult but legitimate criticism? The official government stat is 1.05M FN members. They have been targeted by over 200B$ in federal wealth transfers alone excluding tax incentives, provincial and municipal funding since 2015. That's almost 20K$ per person per year, more than what most Canadians pay in taxes each year and yet many FN communities don't have running water. I think to ask about potential corruption or at least gross mismanagement is absolutly legitimate.