In response to suggestions by a lunatic in the US Oval Office, Green Party Canada’s leader Elizabeth May suggested Canada should invite western states Washington, Oregon and California join B.C and split from Canada to form the ‘Cascadia’ eco-state.
(Note this article is from Jan 8, 2025 and Elizabeth May has since become co-leader of the party alongside Jonathan Pedneault).
That would immediately launch it into the #2 spot of countries by GDP. I’m down for that 🤣
No, it woukdn’t. A ton of California’s money comes from being part of the US economy. Redirecting all the money the state gets from being oart of the USA away from those states will change theor GDP considerably.
Every single tech firm that wants DOD money will have to leave those states. That will gut any potential gain you could expect.
Lulzwut
As a Washingtonian, I’m totally okay with this.
Same here, this sounds like the best thing I dare hope for at this point
Why does the east coast always get left out?
Because the east coast will form Mega-City One.
It’s gonna be called the DMV because I’m pretty sure that’s the coolest metro area name in the north east.
It will become DMV City when New York City becomes connected
Do you really want to merge with Quebec?
Maine should be part of New Brunswick but we hate Americans the people so that’s why these suggestions are just jokes
Never going to happen. The USA will not let CA leave.
So, I think this could happen. Trump and Musk are just trying to speedrun smashing the administrative state; it’s difficult to overstate the enormity of the damage they’re going to do to the federal government’s ability to govern over the next two months. Laying off all these administrators and closing their offices is going to create a glut of administrators at the same time as it creates a demand for administrative capacity to make up for what the feds dropped. Plus, they’re going to want to stop California, but how will they when they’ve gone and replaced every competent person in the DOJ/DOD/FBI/CIA with incompetent stooges?
California has an advanced enough administrative state to handle breaking off, jokes aside. California also has the economy. Here’s the kicker: California has the geography. California would be a complete bitch to invade; for most of the coastline, the mountains (hills, as the locals call them, but they ARE mountains) just run right into the ocean, and the ocean is notoriously a bastard for much of that coastline; as for an overland route, there’s basically, like, three big highways that cross the Sierra Nevadas to inland Cali. A couple of big bombs or cal fire bulldozers would make short work of them. Plus, California has a LOT of agriculture to support itself with. Basically, the one weak spot is water supply, and we could be doing a lot better than we are if we just tightened up on our industrial, livestock, and rich dumbass consumption.
The geography you are talking about is important as a minor modifier in the context of highly professional fighting force using it. By itself it changes nothing compared to dry flatlands, a bit more costly transportation. When a military doesn’t have a road, they first make the dirt road (throwing sand and gravy here and there), then lay armed concrete shields in line, and then may even use asphalt on top of that. I don’t know anything about that, so may be a bit more complex, but the point is that it’s a solvable problem.
I would honestly love to see a gravy road.
Jokes aside, there’s a reason why there’s only a few major roads going through the Sierra; it’s a major PITA to lay new routes, and even rebuilding old ones is a huge pain (I should know, I’ve seen them get washed out). Many times, these roads have many and large choke points where your maneuvering choices are a rock face on one side and a cliff or drop off on the other. Even if you could repair the roads quick, they’re ripe for guerilla warfare, sabotage, and espionage. Really, it would be IED central, and those IEDs would likely set off land-slides that would have to be dealt with to get the road usable again. And keep in mind that we’re talking about crossing an entire mountain range to get into the interior of California. Invading Cali by land would be a real bad time.
Invading Cali by land would be a real bad time.
Right. But there’s no shortage of aircraft, fuel and airbases well within reach.
EDIT:
I didn’t mean gravy road, I meant that as sort of a stabilizer it’s needed inside the elevation for that road. Actually I don’t know much about building roads. Countryside pathways are my level.
I would point you to the siege of Hostomel airport in the Ruso-Ukrainian conflict. It is ridiculously easy to render an airport unusable, temporarily if you think you can hold it, and semi-permanently if you’re less confident.
California’s economy is extremely dependent on being part of the USA. They barely cover the hap between money taken from the government and what they contribute and it is fairly easy to make the case they take more.
The government would not need to invade. The moment they make clear that CA farmers cannot access the Colorado river waters like they used to and that any foreign tech company is no longer able to access US DOD money you will see tech be willing to move and agriculture collapse in CA. After gutting any aide and scholarships for students attending CA schools and the USA will have crippled the top 3 industries in CA without firing a shot.
CA wouldn’t be akin to France ir Italy if it left the USA it would be more like Mexico economically.
The moment they make clear that CA farmers cannot access the Colorado river waters like they used to
But…but…I’ve been told that there’s a big faucet up here in Canada that we can turn on for y’all to make it all better.
/s. (god I can’t believe I live in a world where I need an /s tag for this)
Bro, Mexico isn’t really that badly off. They’ve got their problems, for sure, but who doesn’t?
Second, California is sure to have its own defense industry, and I don’t know if you’d see tech abandon their silicon valley HQs. It’s going to be hard to walk away from that pool of skilled labor they’ve concentrated in that area.
True but many of the people who back this will mouth nonsense about how CA would be the 5th richest nation when that position entirely depends on being part of the USA. Once the agriculture businesses cease getting US subsidies and the tech sector flees California would not be so wealthy.
Tech will go where their money goes and those employees will follow.
Ok, but we made a promise in the past to take Alaska and Hawaii with us too.
It’s super convenient because Hawaii and Alaska are in boxes just off the west coast on maps.
Never forget
The National Post seems to have taken down the article so linking to archive.is
So, instead of Canada becoming the 51st state, the suggestion is that Canada just loses BC? How about we dismiss all the options where Canada loses territory?
Also, if BC seceded, it would only be a matter of time before Quebec did too.
I’m not fundamentally against the idea of states splitting off or joining up. There’s no reason that the configuration of countries should always stay as they are in 2025. But, the reasons should be good. If there truly is a “Cascadian” culture, then yeah, maybe a nice separation agreement could be negotiated that’s fair to everyone. But, having spent time in Vancouver, Seattle, San Fransisco and LA, I sure don’t see it. The cultural difference even between SF and LA is pretty huge. And, I can’t imagine that most people in BC would be keen to accept the guns of America, and the lack of free health care. Or, going the other way, would Americans be willing to give up their guns to join Cascadia?
It just seems to me that every time the world adds borders or moves borders, the result is conflict. I hope that over time there are fewer borders, and that the borders matter less. But, the only way to do it while avoiding war is really to do it slowly.
The “Cascadia” idea wouldn’t be viable IMO. It would be better for all to just add the newcomers to an enlarged Canada. (I 100% wouldn’t want B.C. to leave Canada, just to be clear, nor any Canadian territories to be ‘exchanged’ or lost).
I’d be against any absorption that brought US gun ideology to Canada… if they’re splitting from the US, they’d better be doing so for the goals of taking on the more pacifist and commensalist Canadian values.
Taking away 74 reliable Democratic electoral college votes would permanently throw the US to the Republicans.
Texas (40) and Florida (30) would steamroller New York (28) and Illinois (19).
Yup. Guess those who want to stay out of a Repub hell-hole would want to move to Cascadia (or more realistically, an enlarged Canada) while they still could, then.
While true, this is pretty much gonna happen anyway. Next census, if the GOP is still in control they’ll exclude non-citizens from the counts and pretty much make up numbers. Who knew the entire West Coast was 30% non-citizen!
Last election did that. If you think there will continue to be free and democratic elections in US after Trump you are mistaken. Those college votes are no longer going to matter.
The REMNANTS of the US would be fucked without the regular contributions of CA and tech folks based in WA. Most (or is it all?) red states are net takers (pull more from government than they contribute back) while publicly whining about welfare. Fuck around and find out…
As a Californian I’ll say that if they want to take our rights and go home, we’ll take our money and go home.
Cascadia. Sounds like a rejected Hunger Games spinoff. Let’s carve up nations like a rotisserie chicken because the Overton window’s been replaced by a funhouse mirror. California can’t even fix a pothole without 17 ballot initiatives, but sure, let’s rewrite sovereignty. BC would sooner adopt Texas’s gun laws than tolerate Sacramento’s NIMBY circus.
This isn’t secession—it’s geopolitical fanfiction. Canada’s already two polite arguments away from Quebec storming out. Cascadia would collapse faster than a Jenga tower in a MAGA rally. Balkanization’s a cute fantasy until Alabama starts eyeing your water rights. Keep your “eco-state.” I’ll stick to my prepper bunker—at least it’s got a shot at surviving the next zoning meeting.
I was actually just reading a book a couple months ago, Blasphemy Online where the US fell apart and and several new countries formed after the US fell and Cascadia WAS one of the countries… so that’s neat I guess.
I wish my state wasn’t surrounded by red states because I’d be down to join too.
Colorado? I always want to include them in Cascadia nonsense but yeah geography issues.
As someone not in these states I would support all efforts to retain Colorado. There’s a fuckload of critical infrastructure the USA requires that is in CO. It’s on a short list of states the USA cannot function well without- NY, CA, TX, CO, IL, and GA are all too important to the day to day functioning to let go.
USA has by world’s measure a huge fuckload of money to rapidly build infrastructure.
As someone who’s never been in USA - what’s so critical about Colorado?..
A lot of our phone and internet cabling goes through there and they control a chunk of the Colorado river which CA needs to overwater their fields.
Seriously Cascadia is never going to happen.
Alaska is surrounded by Canada yet it’s still part of the US
Canaforeton
Hmm, pretty sure those states have a “lien” on them.
