Speaking of which, the Redacted crew (Natali and Clayton Morris) had a go at trying to understand Carney, and daresay Canada itself, which is pretty hard for most Americans to even give it much of a thought, yet they had a go. David Krayden (Post Millennial) joins the discussion, which brings up the King and royalty coming soon, while not addressing Canadian Parliament since 1977 (that was the Queen then).
A couple of other things here - yes, much reference to the King and his good friend Carney, yet something was briefly said that I had not caught before, which is that Mark Carney's brother happens to be the CEO of Prince William's estate, at least they threw that out there.
No really big revelations, other than folks are generally not please.
Despite the above, had a full listen to a 3-month old talk from The Lavigne Show, featuring joint interviews with both Bruce Pardy and Matthew Ehret (basically, Law and History). The focus looked to a very slim window of time now, with Alberta in a position to make a referendum move - this could even be unofficial started by a group, that if successful, would force an official same. What could be the outcome if successful; in Bruce's words, you don't go with an aim to be the 51st, no, perhaps Alberta, and he says Newfoundland, just decide, and then see where it goes. Maybe if a decision is made, what does it matter what the rest of Canada thinks as they will need to figure out their own destiny. Oerall and slim, Bruce is looking to opportunity (which brings up leadership, who? I can think of a few whos, and whether they would, not sure).
Matt's view is somewhat shared to Bruce's, although he looks to the usual suspects who have a way at disrupting (Antifa et cetera, and overall agent provocateur's and group infiltrators). Matt cites the RCMP during the so-called October revolution in Quebec (FLQ), and that can be seen if looked at more closely (imo). This is all played forward now by 3-months, but the central aspect of going a different way is very much front a center. The focus on both sides is in being a Republic, and not being what has become the thought of a continued Canadian Westminster identity. These thoughts are tenaciously held on to, without much looking at cui bono, and most Canadians will not be interested in giving it up, Easterners' especially (yet Quebec can do what it does if it came to it).
In giving it up, whatever that might possibly look like was discussed, with Bruce even offering suggestions to the Americans, if say Alberta were join, which suggests asking if they can ensure that their legal apparatus to 'delegate' lawmaking powers to agencies can no longer happen (a suggested amendment), where the law is only to be made by legislatures and not agencies (in his legal opinion it is a big failure - one might add 'dire' failure, as can be seen).
On one point, Bruce mentions the thought, and a good comment, is in what the Americans have that Canadians simply do not, which is in being able to have an argument in the first place - as he says, in Canada it is mostly a consensus. That is indeed how it seems to be run, when a leader of a party can stand in parliament with a popular vote of 29% and wax on about speaking for all Canadians (never mind the media), and the sad part is that most Canadians are the agreeable types (covid was one such manipulated behavioral agreement).
Lastly, both Brus and Matt brought in their nuanced perspectives, so it was rare in a way, in a rare time, with Matt often citing macro global socioeconomic and political history, as he can do, while Bruce brings in law, state and the administrative state and its systems. They both can see the insiders.
