Secession - inevitable or avoidable?

[Vermont Green]

But that's an awful precedent to set. It encourages governments to drag their feet on referendums in hoping that the people will pick "the right choice" a couple years later.

I am not sure it is a bad precedent.  I base this on discussions with a handful of British friends/work colleagues.  Those that voted in favor of Brexit did so thinking there was a plan, that it was thought through.  Now that more of the details and lack of a plan have been revealed, some who voted for Brexit, now are having second thoughts.

Much like the "Defund Police" rhetoric is bad for the Democratic party, this type of rhetoric will be bad for republicans in the end.  It is the same, sounds good when you are marching and carrying signs (or in the case of some radical republicans, carrying assault rifles) at a protest, but really not smart.

[gift]

Overall people in the US are too comfortable to risk something as significant as secession. Being actually or perceived oppressed, disenfranchised, cheated in the US is still a relatively good position to be in on the whole.

Rather, I think talk of secession represents that the extreme level of division in the country is nearing its end, actually. As extreme movements reach their natural barrier limits they can either break through them or disperse, and I don't see them breaking through because there's too much risk there. Generally, people have hope within the system and likely we'll see large shifts and realignments of scholars, media, political campaigns and advocates and even a natural moderation of all the extremes by former sympathizers to those movements.

[Kernewek]

But that's an awful precedent to set. It encourages governments to drag their feet on referendums in hoping that the people will pick "the right choice" a couple years later.

I am not sure it is a bad precedent.  I base this on discussions with a handful of British friends/work colleagues.  Those that voted in favor of Brexit did so thinking there was a plan, that it was thought through.  Now that more of the details and lack of a plan have been revealed, some who voted for Brexit, now are having second thoughts.

Much like the "Defund Police" rhetoric is bad for the Democratic party, this type of rhetoric will be bad for republicans in the end.  It is the same, sounds good when you are marching and carrying signs (or in the case of some radical republicans, carrying assault rifles) at a protest, but really not smart.

It would be an awful precedent, particularly after the 2019 election results and four years of nonsense.

I also have to take issue with your idea that they voted because there was a plan. There was never a plan. The Vote Leave campaign was always a big red bus with lies on it and "the country is full" xenophobia. Many of the votes were voting against Cameron, who was a Remain PM. The fact that the Conservatives (broadly) wanted to remain in the EU has been one of the central points of anguish regarding why a deal has not yet been passed. Theresa May delivered a deal at the beginning of last year. It was voted down 3 times by the same Tories who wanted to stay in 2016.

Having said that, there are some good reasons to want to exist outside of the EU, but you wouldn't have found any of them in the run up to the election from the people campaigning to leave.

[Neurotic Guy]

Overall people in the US are too comfortable to risk something as significant as secession. Being actually or perceived oppressed, disenfranchised, cheated in the US is still a relatively good position to be in on the whole.

Rather, I think talk of secession represents that the extreme level of division in the country is nearing its end, actually. As extreme movements reach their natural barrier limits they can either break through them or disperse, and I don't see them breaking through because there's too much risk there. Generally, people have hope within the system and likely we'll see large shifts and realignments of scholars, media, political campaigns and advocates and even a natural moderation of all the extremes by former sympathizers to those movements.

Great take! Sensible and reassuring.   TP

[RPGenerate]

But that's an awful precedent to set. It encourages governments to drag their feet on referendums in hoping that the people will pick "the right choice" a couple years later.

I am not sure it is a bad precedent.  I base this on discussions with a handful of British friends/work colleagues.  Those that voted in favor of Brexit did so thinking there was a plan, that it was thought through.  Now that more of the details and lack of a plan have been revealed, some who voted for Brexit, now are having second thoughts.

Much like the "Defund Police" rhetoric is bad for the Democratic party, this type of rhetoric will be bad for republicans in the end.  It is the same, sounds good when you are marching and carrying signs (or in the case of some radical republicans, carrying assault rifles) at a protest, but really not smart.

But that's on the government, no? The solution to not having a plan behind a referendum is to create a plan that is good in the eyes of the people, not to continually kick the can down the road and to hope that their own government's inefficiency frustrates the British people to the point that everyone throws up their hands and says "screw it!"

[Kernewek]

But that's an awful precedent to set. It encourages governments to drag their feet on referendums in hoping that the people will pick "the right choice" a couple years later.

I am not sure it is a bad precedent.  I base this on discussions with a handful of British friends/work colleagues.  Those that voted in favor of Brexit did so thinking there was a plan, that it was thought through.  Now that more of the details and lack of a plan have been revealed, some who voted for Brexit, now are having second thoughts.

Much like the "Defund Police" rhetoric is bad for the Democratic party, this type of rhetoric will be bad for republicans in the end.  It is the same, sounds good when you are marching and carrying signs (or in the case of some radical republicans, carrying assault rifles) at a protest, but really not smart.

But that's on the government, no? The solution to not having a plan behind a referendum is to create a plan that is good in the eyes of the people, not to continually kick the can down the road and to hope that their own government's inefficiency frustrates the British people to the point that everyone throws up their hands and says "screw it!"

I mean important to point out here that the man who made the referendum a key part of his election strategy announced that he was going to resign from office as soon as the referendum results came in:

“I was absolutely clear about my belief that Britain is stronger, safer and better off inside the EU. I made clear the referendum was about this, and this alone, not the future of any single politician, including myself.

“But the British people made a different decision to take a different path. As such I think the country requires fresh leadership to take it in this direction."

And, just like American politics and the President, when a PM resigns or is replaced the new PM gets to appoint a cabinet of their choosing. Many of the people responsible for the referendum have long since washed their hands of it.


Texas, however, would be stuck between Mexico and the rest of the United States. Even if the US gvt didn't come in and squash secession at the start (which, well, the Civil War would have laid out that precedent quite clearly we would think), they would be facing a pair of very hostile countries that are much larger than they are. And that's before you get to messy things like citizenship rights, waterway access, natural resource import and export...

[Vermont Green]

But that's an awful precedent to set. It encourages governments to drag their feet on referendums in hoping that the people will pick "the right choice" a couple years later.

I am not sure it is a bad precedent.  I base this on discussions with a handful of British friends/work colleagues.  Those that voted in favor of Brexit did so thinking there was a plan, that it was thought through.  Now that more of the details and lack of a plan have been revealed, some who voted for Brexit, now are having second thoughts.

Much like the "Defund Police" rhetoric is bad for the Democratic party, this type of rhetoric will be bad for republicans in the end.  It is the same, sounds good when you are marching and carrying signs (or in the case of some radical republicans, carrying assault rifles) at a protest, but really not smart.

But that's on the government, no? The solution to not having a plan behind a referendum is to create a plan that is good in the eyes of the people, not to continually kick the can down the road and to hope that their own government's inefficiency frustrates the British people to the point that everyone throws up their hands and says "screw it!"

I think the difference between how we are looking at this is that there never was a good plan to exit the EU and there never will be a good plan for Texas to secede from USA.  It is not that the "government" (which is really elected officials) are dragging their feet purposefully, the problem is that exiting the EU is really complicated (as would Texas "exiting" the USA).  The constituency of politicians that "sold" Brexit now cannot fulfill their promise.  They just can't get it done.

Another analogy is the republicans trying to kill ACA (Obamacare) without a plan to replace it.  It is easy to rile up a base around big bad Obamacare, much harder to come up with a plan to replace it that actually is better (who knew healthcare could be so complicated). 

That is what I see here.  Rah Rah, bad Brexit, Rah Rah.  Oh, we need a plan?  Wait, you mean if we exit the EU but Ireland doesn't, we have to deal with the boarder?  Oh, you mean this will actually end up hurting some business?  It is going to be harder for me to travel for business?  Harder on banks to maintain liquidity and do business?  And about a million other details that nobody considered but have to be addressed?  Oh, and the rest of the EU isn't going to make this easy for us and a agree to a British-friendly deal?

Who knew Brexit could be so complicated.  Certainly not the politicians that pushed this in the first place or if they did, they didn't care as it was helping them politically.

[ozgod]

Just like Brexit was something that sounded good at political rallies but in the end  was not thought through and the  reality is a lot less favorable, the same will happen with this. This Texas rep. who is a hardware store owner, thinks this sounds great to a constituency but it should be a requirement that he present a full plan, not just throw it out and see if it sticks.

For example, what is the plan to secure the border with Mexico?  How will Texas maintain the new border with US?  What about all the military bases in Texas?  What about American companies that are headquartered in Texas but have offices in other states?  Or the other way around?

There is no way that any of this has been thought out because if it had, it would be clear this is a really dumb idea.  No, this is just more divisive political rhetoric intended to do nothing more than rile up a base.  This is not good for the country and not good for Texas.

Let's see if rank and file elected republicans sign on to this.  127 of them agreed that the Supreme court should overturn an election so nothing would surprise me.

To my point, this is the risk of having referendums and other "let the people decide" mechanisms determine policy, particularly for things that require a lot of thought and have a lot of ramifications beyond sloganeering. It's one thing to have a party, and party principles, and to have people vote for the general direction that they want a country or state to go. It's another thing to "leave it up to them" to decide things that are really important. Elected officials are elected for a reason, to make decisions on behalf of the people.

What happened with Brexit was that David Cameron, the Conservative British PM, had been constantly dealing with attacks from other Tories on his right flank on leaving the EU. Other parties, such as Nigel Farage's UKIP (UK Independence Party) formed to push the Brexit issue. Cameron decided to put it to a referendum where he promised to respect the result, to try to put the issue to bed. It did - but not in the matter he hoped, because the Leave vote won by 51.8% by 48.1% - which showed that the country was divided down the line on it. But it had to be done, because he had promised and he (or the Tory party) didn't want to break their promise and "defy the will of the people". The day after Google queries for "what is Brexit" spiked in the UK. I would wager that many of those folks that voted probably had no idea what they were voting for.

Now ultimately Brexit may end up being the right decision, time will tell. But the way it was done, with possibly no trade deal or any deal in place, was probably not the way anyone (other than hard core anti-EU believers) would have wanted. Leaving things "to the will of the people" can be dangerous, because the people don't always put in the level of thought into things that they should, and they don't think about ramifications. That's why we elect people who are supposed to do that for us.

Politicians love slogans - Brexit, Texit, Calexit, Build the Wall, Defund the Police, etc...particularly in our social media age where it can be turned into a hashtag. Implementing what is behind those slogans is much, much harder. Don't ask people to just decide on a slogan.