[deleted]

Comments

• AcesFullOfKings@feddit.uk ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  [deleted]

  source

  • untitled@reddthat.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    [deleted]

    source

    • FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      Every case is different and the UK as a political union without a written constitution can technically allow one of their four home nations to become independent (again).

      The US has had bad experiences with seceding states. Big kerfuffle that people didn’t want to repeat.

      When it comes to international recognition of seceding territories, it’s frankly a mess. And also, frankly, everything is possible. Kosovo is an example where the majority of the international community decided to recognize it as a sovereign country. It was a solution to a war situation that didn’t make all parties happy. Serbia and Russia, for instance, still don’t recognize it. So while Mass may not technically be allowed to leave, if it did anyway, it would depend on the reaction from the rest of the union first and foremost, and then on the international community. If they back you and maybe even send peace keepers, there is a chance still. But there is a whole laundry list of things that have to go right for this to happen.

      I’d suggest you devote all your energy to fixing the United States first. Resist 47 and his GOP cult followers. Not all is lost just yet.

      source
    • schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

      and if that had succeeded, the UK parliament would probably have consented to Scotland becoming independent. If the national government agrees to secession, it’s always legal.

      source
• vvilld@lemmy.dbzer0.com ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  They can secede, with the consent of the other states (meaning an act of the Federal government).

  The general theory is that once a state enters into the Union it gains certain privileges and benefits which it would not previously had access to. Things like military protection, federal government investment, the increased power/influence in global politics/economics, etc, etc. Each state is getting things from other states and the federal government at the same time as they’re giving things in return. Since it’s a two-way relationship, it should take both parties to sever that relationship.

  It just seems wrong to me, kind of like not allowing divorces.

  I’d argue it’s more like requiring alimony after a divorce. When two people are married often one will put their career on hold or de-emphasize it in order to focus on other things to support the marriage (eg stay-at-home parent). When the couple then divorces, the courts recognize that the individual who put their career on hold is now at a sever disadvantage in that they have forgone however many years of experience, advancement, salary, etc. They can’t just jump back into the workforce and expect to get a job as good as if they had been working the whole time. And the other member of the relationship (the one who did not sacrifice their career) got the benefits of having someone to manage the home while they could focus on their career.

  So the court acknowledges this disparity in the relationship and will require the higher-paid member of the marriage to pay alimony payments to the other as a way to make up for that economic imbalance between them. The higher earning member of the marriage can’t just divorce and go about their way without having to compensate the other for the years they spent focusing on the family rather than their career.

  This is what the secession of a US state would look like in theory. We tried the whole “one side gets unilaterally decides to break up without mediation or compensation to the other” thing. It was the impetus for the bloodiest war in American history. In order to secede “the right way” (ie without bloodshed), a state would have to go to the Federal Government and ask to secede. The government (which is a collection of representatives of the states and people in the states) then debates and decides on terms.

  Of course, this has never been done or even tried. I suspect that pretty much every single state (except maybe California) would find that the benefits of staying in the Union far outweigh the benefits of leaving.

  source
• foggy@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Vermont and Texas are allowed, they never signed.

  source
• ImplyingImplications@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  People can’t decide to secede and be sovereign citizens. Why would that change just because it’s now a larger group of people?

  Wyoming has about 600,000 people. What if they all wanted to leave? What if 1,200,000 people in California wanted to leave? That’s twice as many people! Can they leave? What if 70% of a state wants to leave but 30% want to stay? Do the people who want to stay just get dragged out? There’s just no nice clean way for secession to happen. If people want to secede, they unfortunately need to want it enough to fight a civil war.

  source

  • tacosanonymous@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

    ^This. Also, many other complex details. Imagine Colorado seceding. It is surrounded by American states, has federal land inside it, interstate highways maintained (at least partially) by federal, etc. It’s a logistical nightmare. Seceding for the right reasons sounds cool af though. I’d love to be in a place that wasn’t ruled by two political parties that only exist to take from its citizens and give to corporations. My state would fucking die on its own, though. Especially so, now that has turned solidly red.

    source
• schnurrito@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  They are (probably), just not unilaterally. If the federal government (Congress) passed a bill allowing it, who would be there to stop it? This is how it is in most countries.

  Ultimately, “legal” isn’t a very good claim to make on these questions… a secession that is successful will obviously be considered legal by the seceded country.

  You may find this interesting: astralcodexten.com/…/who-gets-self-determination

  source
• Objection@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Secession is a really interesting topic to examine because it’s virtually impossible for anyone to have a “principled” stance on it.

  The one good point I ever heard from an anarcho-capitalist was in regards to the prospect of Catalan secession some years back. Catalonia held a referendum on secession which was not recognized by Spain and was boycotted by those who opposed it. One of the reasons they wanted to leave was that they felt the region was getting a raw deal, giving more tax revenue to the central government than they got in return.

  Well, then, there was talk about if that happened, the city of Barcelona might seceed from Catalonia! It had the same complaint that it produced more revenue that went to the rest of the region, and many people there weren’t necessarily interested in what Catalonia was trying to do.

  If we say that Catalonia should be able to seceed from Spain, then why shouldn’t Barcelona be able to seceed from Catalonia? And if Barcelona can seceed, then can a district in Barcelona seceed from the city? And can we not follow this logic all the way down to a single individual seceeding from a district? And if we accept that, then doesn’t that imply that anarcho-capitalism, with its concept of a “minority of one,” is the correct position?

  Well, it’s not. Why is it not? Because there are all sorts of reasons why it’s unworkable and incoherent, and most critically, it cannot address collective action problems. These are practical considerations, which gives us a hint at what our operating logic ought to be. Very simply, secession should be supported when it’s good and opposed when it’s bad. Having bigger or smaller polities is neither good nor bad inherently, but rather we must look at things on a case-by-case basis and evaluate what the likely effects are. There simply isn’t a standard rule that you can apply to all cases without looking at what the secessionists hope to accomplish and how realistic it is. The correct position is to be brazenly “hypocritical,” because you shouldn’t operate on the principle that secession is either inherently good or bad. Instead, we need to evaluate the specific material conditions to determine what’s best in a specific situation.

  Of course, in most cases, states don’t want to give up territory without good reason, and unless you have some means of getting the state to do what you want and leave you alone (including but not limited to guns), then it’s up to their assessment of what’s best whether to allow it or not. You can make the argument that the US should dissolve and balkanize and maybe you’re right, but if the government says no, then where does that leave you?

  source
• CrazyLikeGollum@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  At least as I understand it (and there’s a good chance I’m wrong) there’s nothing in US law preventing a state from seceding. It was determined that the way the southern states decided to do it in the runup to the civil war was unconstitutional (and possibly treasonous? seditious? Something like that), but there’s no law saying a state can’t secede. It’s just that there’s no defined process for it and the only way it has been tried was determined to be wrong.

  From what I’ve read on the topic, there is technically a way it could be done. The country would basically have to follow the same process as passing a constitutional amendment, just with an additional step.

  • The state in question would have to pass a ballot measure to secede
  • The state house and Senate would have to ratify that measure with a 2/3rds super majority.
  • It would have to be passed as a ballot measure by the majority of the country.
  • The US house and senate would have to ratify that measure with a 2/3rds super majority.

  So, not technically impossible just so difficult that it is effectively impossible.

  source
• DebatableRaccoon@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨week⁩ ago

  Ironically, that would be treason.

  source