Show Notes
Rudyard and Andrew focus today’s show on the separatist movements gaining traction across Canada. Quebec voters appear poised to elect a separatist government, potentially setting the stage for another referendum in the coming years. What do we know about PQ leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon? And how might Mark Carney’s popularity in Quebec affect Plamondon’s separatist ambitions?
They then turn to Alberta’s upcoming referendum and ask how strong the separatist movement is without Justin Trudeau in office. National unity, they argue, is closely tied to a sense of national purpose, drive and ambition. If major projects continue to move forward in Alberta, could they help strengthen the case for a united Canada? And what should we make of reports that separatist leaders have been meeting with members of the GOP in Washington? Andrew remains optimistic that Canadians’ commitment to the rule of law will ultimately favour the federalist position and help hold the country together. Become a Munk Donor ($50 annually) to get 72-hour advanced access to the full length editions of Friday Focus and Munk Dialogues. Go to www.munkdebates.com to sign up. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
More from The Munk Debates Podcast
Rudyard and Andrew examine the social unrest sweeping across France. Andrew argues that while protest is deeply embedded in French political culture, the current wave of demonstrations is being fuelled by political opportunism, with the far left exploiting legitimate grievances to foment disorder. With President Macron deeply unpopular and his presidency increasingly weakened, the unrest risks benefiting Marine Le Pen, as the political centre struggles to hold.
Rudyard and Janice begin today’s show with Russia and Ukraine exchanging strikes following a brief, Trump-brokered energy ceasefire that lasted just 48 hours. Is Zelensky’s open defiance of Trump connected to Starlink being shut off in Ukraine and a series of Russian ballistic missile strikes launched without warning? The Trump administration appears to be ratcheting up pressure on Kyiv, punishing Ukraine while Putin faces few consequences for violating the president’s truce. Is Trump trying to weaken Zelensky and force him into concessions that would give Putin enough of a “win” to end the war? As devastating as the prospect of concessions may be, is ending this prolonged and deadly conflict ultimately the better outcome?
Andrew and Rudyard begin today’s show with Trump’s decision to waive sanctions on Russian diesel in an effort to bring down fuel prices ahead of the midterms. Trump is once again putting Putin’s interests ahead of Ukraine’s and showing his admiration for authoritarian leaders whom he wishes to emulate. The move risks bolstering Putin and increasing pressure on Ukraine, while Trump shifts blame for the war’s continuation and rising oil prices onto Zelensky and Kyiv — scapegoating Ukraine for a crisis of America’s own making.
Rudyard and Janice begin today’s show with Trump’s mixed messaging on Iran. While Trump has suggested that military action may be delayed until after the midterms, reports indicate that the U.S. military is preparing for potential strikes. With Trump’s statements increasingly difficult to take at face value, the focus shifts to more concrete signals, such as military deployments. Meanwhile, Iran’s economy is under mounting pressure, with oil exports halted and the economy in free fall. Having challenged Iran’s control of the Strait of Hormuz, the U.S. appears to have gained leverage, while Tehran shows signs of wanting a deal.
Rudyard and Janice begin today’s show with news that the USS Theodore Roosevelt aircraft carrier is being deployed to the Middle East and the signal this is sending to Iran and the region. With Tehran facing a blockade and struggling to earn hard currency, the U.S. calculation points to escalation after the midterms. What could a major Democratic victory in the midterms mean for Trump’s ability to pursue military action? And could another impeachment actually make Trump more aggressive and less constrained?