So folks never thought that Britain would leave the EU.

Do people think that it is actually feasible for California to leave the United States?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-election-aftermath-updates-trail-after-donald-trump-elected-president-1478747229-htmlstory.html

Just a bunch of butt-hurts, similar to the butt-hurts in Texas that said the same gak when Obama was elected.

Don't worry. Hippies are horrible at getting gak done. When you have enough to start action, someone breaks out a hacky-sack and some joints.

California couldn't survive without federal funds and nobody who looked at secession with any seriousness would be able to deny that economic fact.

Sure why not there are smaller countries in europe. Just be ready to have some horrible trade negotiations with the US and all sorts of land locked immigration issues.

I think the San Andreas fault will force California to secede at some point.

They might be the 6th biggest economy in the world, but could they go alone?

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I think the San Andreas fault will force California to secede at some point.

It's just moving North, not West towards the Pacific ocean.

http://www.livescience.com/32140-will-california-ever-fall-into-the-ocean.html


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Skinnereal wrote:
They might be the 6th biggest economy in the world, but could they go alone?

No. They are not self sufficient with their current spending.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I think the San Andreas fault will force California to secede at some point.

No. It will just make them more reliant on the rest of the nation.

 oldzoggy wrote:
Sure why not there are smaller countries in europe. Just be ready to have some horrible trade negotiations with the US and all sorts of land locked immigration issues.

...California is a coastal state.

Californians may wanna rethink that...

For a state with strict gun control and the like... it won't be pretty for them if Civil War Part Deux happens.

A nice rundown of what is actually plausible

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So folks never thought that Britain would leave the EU.

Do people think that it is actually feasible for California to leave the United States?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-election-aftermath-updates-trail-after-donald-trump-elected-president-1478747229-htmlstory.html

Could CA make a decent go of it, sure. Theyre a huge internationalized economy that drives a tremendous amount of growth, research, and agriculture. CA could absolutely make it on their own.

As someone who lived in California most of their life, will CA do it? No. Would it be a good idea? No. Can they legally secede? No. Are anything more than a tiny handful of people in CA even paying attention to such talk? No. Is this something anyone is considering as more than a momentary post election daydream? No.

Plus with a severe drought that is showing no signs of letting up I don't think California can really afford to tell the USA to go feth themselves. Especially since we need water from the Colorado River.

 malamis wrote:
A nice rundown of what is actually plausible

Cool. So financially it's as plausible for California as it is for Texas. An independent California would completely hose the US as so much trade flows through California; all that shipping would have to shift North to Oregon or Washington.

Hmm, not going to happen but an interesting scenario to think about.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Plus with a severe drought that is showing no signs of letting up I don't think California can really afford to tell the USA to go feth themselves. Especially since we need water from the Colorado River.

That is a brilliantly astute point.

Also you would be an easy target for a country just south of you.

 kronk wrote:
Just a bunch of butt-hurts, similar to the butt-hurts in Texas that said the same gak when Obama was elected.

Don't worry. Hippies are horrible at getting gak done. When you have enough to start action, someone breaks out a hacky-sack and some joints.

Now that cali has legalized pot there is no way my state will get anything done

 Desubot wrote:

 kronk wrote:
Just a bunch of butt-hurts, similar to the butt-hurts in Texas that said the same gak when Obama was elected.

Don't worry. Hippies are horrible at getting gak done. When you have enough to start action, someone breaks out a hacky-sack and some joints.

Now that cali has legalized pot there is no way my state will get anything done

...and that's a bad thing now?

Legalizing pot doesnt seem to have paralyzed other states

We can only hope!

Prestor Jon wrote:
California couldn't survive without federal funds and nobody who looked at secession with any seriousness would be able to deny that economic fact.

AFAIK, like a lot of the big rich states (CA, NY, Ect), it it a net contributor of tax dollars, and one of the least dependent states. It tends to be the poorer states that take more then they give (Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana, Tennessee).

It would still be a horrible idea for other reasons, but much like Texas, the economics aren't the main issue.

 Vaktathi wrote:
As someone who lived in California most of their life, will CA do it? No. Would it be a good idea? No. Can they legally secede? No. Are anything more than a tiny handful of people in CA even paying attention to such talk? No. Is this something anyone is considering as more than a momentary post election daydream? No.

As someone living in California his whole life, I agree with Vaktathi's assessment. It isn't going to happen.

 SickSix wrote:
We can only hope!

Haha... okay guy from Florida.

Prestor Jon wrote:
California couldn't survive without federal funds and nobody who looked at secession with any seriousness would be able to deny that economic fact.

CA could succeed at it, if they really wanted it. I have no idea where you got that weird idea from.

by simply removing the federal tax from their people, they could raise their state tax and easily be in the black. I'm pretty sure they're already in the black. Then rent the land for military bases back to the us government and that's another source of income for the state and a small tariff for all goods that pass through the state to the US and they might even be able to do away with the state tax.

couldn't survive without federal funds? LOL

some facts for you:
http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3305

The Budget Situation Through 2016–17: Decidedly Positive. The state budget is better prepared for an economic downturn than it has been at any point in decades. In 2015–16, we project that the state’s “Big Three” General Fund revenues—principally the personal income tax—will exceed June 2015 budget assumptions by $3.6 billion, with most of that gain to be deposited into the Proposition 2 rainy day fund. In 2016–17, we project that revenues will exceed spending under current policies, resulting in even further improvement in the state’s fiscal situation. Assuming no new budget commitments are made, we estimate 2016–17 would end with reserves of $11.5 billion. Of this total, the Legislature would have control over $4.3 billion in the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties, the state’s traditional budget reserve, with the rest of the reserves held for future budget emergencies by Proposition 2.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
California couldn't survive without federal funds and nobody who looked at secession with any seriousness would be able to deny that economic fact.

CA could succeed at it, if they really wanted it. I have no idea where you got that weird idea from.

by simply removing the federal tax from their people, they could raise their state tax and easily be in the black. I'm pretty sure they're already in the black. Then rent the land for military bases back to the us government and that's another source of income for the state and a small tariff for all goods that pass through the state to the US and they might even be able to do away with the state tax.

couldn't survive without federal funds? LOL

some facts for you:
http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3305

The Budget Situation Through 2016–17: Decidedly Positive. The state budget is better prepared for an economic downturn than it has been at any point in decades. In 2015–16, we project that the state’s “Big Three” General Fund revenues—principally the personal income tax—will exceed June 2015 budget assumptions by $3.6 billion, with most of that gain to be deposited into the Proposition 2 rainy day fund. In 2016–17, we project that revenues will exceed spending under current policies, resulting in even further improvement in the state’s fiscal situation. Assuming no new budget commitments are made, we estimate 2016–17 would end with reserves of $11.5 billion. Of this total, the Legislature would have control over $4.3 billion in the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties, the state’s traditional budget reserve, with the rest of the reserves held for future budget emergencies by Proposition 2.

Will the American companies HQ'd there stay? The manufacturing? The licensed Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals? Probably not. Bye-bye tax revenue and services.

Where will they get their water supply? They're currently taking it from 5-6 other states. Think that will continue? Nope.

Build desalination plants? Good idea. See you in 15 years when you build 2 of the 15 you need.


Listen, it's a cute day dream exercise. I've heard it all when I was in Texas. This is no different.

 kronk wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
California couldn't survive without federal funds and nobody who looked at secession with any seriousness would be able to deny that economic fact.

CA could succeed at it, if they really wanted it. I have no idea where you got that weird idea from.

by simply removing the federal tax from their people, they could raise their state tax and easily be in the black. I'm pretty sure they're already in the black. Then rent the land for military bases back to the us government and that's another source of income for the state and a small tariff for all goods that pass through the state to the US and they might even be able to do away with the state tax.

couldn't survive without federal funds? LOL

some facts for you:
http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3305

The Budget Situation Through 2016–17: Decidedly Positive. The state budget is better prepared for an economic downturn than it has been at any point in decades. In 2015–16, we project that the state’s “Big Three” General Fund revenues—principally the personal income tax—will exceed June 2015 budget assumptions by $3.6 billion, with most of that gain to be deposited into the Proposition 2 rainy day fund. In 2016–17, we project that revenues will exceed spending under current policies, resulting in even further improvement in the state’s fiscal situation. Assuming no new budget commitments are made, we estimate 2016–17 would end with reserves of $11.5 billion. Of this total, the Legislature would have control over $4.3 billion in the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties, the state’s traditional budget reserve, with the rest of the reserves held for future budget emergencies by Proposition 2.

Will the American companies HQ'd there stay? The manufacturing? The licensed Doctors, lawyers, and other professionals? Probably not. Bye-bye tax revenue and services.

Where will they get their water supply? They're currently taking it from 5-6 other states. Think that will continue? Nope.

Build desalination plants? Good idea. See you in 15 years when you build 2 of the 15 you need.


Listen, it's a cute day dream exercise. I've heard it all when I was in Texas. This is no different.

lets see, companies think with their bottom line, and not having to pay federal tax would get the CEO more money, so there's a good chance they'll stay. The agriculture industry wouldn't go anywhere.

Why would the doctors and professionals leave? they'd still be needed, they'd still make good money by staying.

the water deal could be included as a package deal to allow the military to continue to use it's bases.

why not build all 15 at once?

Yes it's a fun thought experiment, but cali would do magnitudes better than texas would. And they would by no means struggle economically, It would more likely be the reverse and the US would suffer from the loss of federal income from cali.

There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
California couldn't survive without federal funds and nobody who looked at secession with any seriousness would be able to deny that economic fact.

CA could succeed at it, if they really wanted it. I have no idea where you got that weird idea from.

by simply removing the federal tax from their people, they could raise their state tax and easily be in the black. I'm pretty sure they're already in the black. Then rent the land for military bases back to the us government and that's another source of income for the state and a small tariff for all goods that pass through the state to the US and they might even be able to do away with the state tax.

couldn't survive without federal funds? LOL

some facts for you:
http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3305

The Budget Situation Through 2016–17: Decidedly Positive. The state budget is better prepared for an economic downturn than it has been at any point in decades. In 2015–16, we project that the state’s “Big Three” General Fund revenues—principally the personal income tax—will exceed June 2015 budget assumptions by $3.6 billion, with most of that gain to be deposited into the Proposition 2 rainy day fund. In 2016–17, we project that revenues will exceed spending under current policies, resulting in even further improvement in the state’s fiscal situation. Assuming no new budget commitments are made, we estimate 2016–17 would end with reserves of $11.5 billion. Of this total, the Legislature would have control over $4.3 billion in the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties, the state’s traditional budget reserve, with the rest of the reserves held for future budget emergencies by Proposition 2.

Actually if you tried to secede we would cut off your water and your power and you would be done.

I forgot about electricity. Lots of wind and solar out in the desert areas, but enough to cover the state? Do I recall there being rolling black outs in the early 2000s?

 Frazzled wrote:
Actually if you tried to secede we would cut off your water and your power and you would be done.

Or just have a platoon of Marines at Twentynine Palms take the state over. Cali militias won't stand much chance, having to bankrupt themselves paying a NICS check fee when they want ammo, and dealing with the bullet button plus and whatnot.

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
California couldn't survive without federal funds and nobody who looked at secession with any seriousness would be able to deny that economic fact.

CA could succeed at it, if they really wanted it. I have no idea where you got that weird idea from.

by simply removing the federal tax from their people, they could raise their state tax and easily be in the black. I'm pretty sure they're already in the black. Then rent the land for military bases back to the us government and that's another source of income for the state and a small tariff for all goods that pass through the state to the US and they might even be able to do away with the state tax.

couldn't survive without federal funds? LOL

some facts for you:
http://lao.ca.gov/Publications/Report/3305

The Budget Situation Through 2016–17: Decidedly Positive. The state budget is better prepared for an economic downturn than it has been at any point in decades. In 2015–16, we project that the state’s “Big Three” General Fund revenues—principally the personal income tax—will exceed June 2015 budget assumptions by $3.6 billion, with most of that gain to be deposited into the Proposition 2 rainy day fund. In 2016–17, we project that revenues will exceed spending under current policies, resulting in even further improvement in the state’s fiscal situation. Assuming no new budget commitments are made, we estimate 2016–17 would end with reserves of $11.5 billion. Of this total, the Legislature would have control over $4.3 billion in the Special Fund for Economic Uncertainties, the state’s traditional budget reserve, with the rest of the reserves held for future budget emergencies by Proposition 2.

Actually if you tried to secede we would cut off your water and your power and you would be done.

or if they just claimed all the military bases, the could easily invade and take arizona, nevada, and oregon

the water could be it's only issue, but they'd have the money to buy it, and the US would be in a recession from cali leaving they'd gladly sell it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
I forgot about electricity. Lots of wind and solar out in the desert areas, but enough to cover the state? Do I recall there being rolling black outs in the early 2000s?

yes 16 years ago that was a problem because of the shady stuff enron was doing.

 kronk wrote:
I forgot about electricity. Lots of wind and solar out in the desert areas, but enough to cover the state? Do I recall there being rolling black outs in the early 2000s?

California is an energy importer in a big way. Cut off the fertilizer and they are a massive food importer as well.

or if they just claimed all the military bases, the could easily invade and take arizona, nevada, and oregon

As noted, the US troops on those bases might disagree. I seem to remember some time where rebels fired on a US base before...

the water could be it's only issue, but they'd have the money to buy it, and the US would be in a recession from cali leaving they'd gladly sell it.

Why would the US sell it? In history regions rebelling usually don't have very good relations with the former nation.


EDIT: I should note I argue with Texas secess all the time, lets play. Next I remind you that you owe the US trillions. Please pay up.

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

um...Gettysburg ring a bell?

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

Albeit American history hasn't ever been big interest point for me but didn't some states try to leave union about 150 years ago? Didn't that end up less than peacefully?

 kronk wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I think the San Andreas fault will force California to secede at some point.

It's just moving North, not West towards the Pacific ocean.

So the whole state is moving to Canada?!

Very slowly...yes

 Frazzled wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

um...Gettysburg ring a bell?

Lincoln had no authority to start that war. But it happened and victors set the terms.

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I forgot about electricity. Lots of wind and solar out in the desert areas, but enough to cover the state? Do I recall there being rolling black outs in the early 2000s?

California is an energy importer in a big way. Cut off the fertilizer and they are a massive food importer as well.

or if they just claimed all the military bases, the could easily invade and take arizona, nevada, and oregon

As noted, the US troops on those bases might disagree. I seem to remember some time where rebels fired on a US base before...

the water could be it's only issue, but they'd have the money to buy it, and the US would be in a recession from cali leaving they'd gladly sell it.

Why would the US sell it? In history regions rebelling usually don't have very good relations with the former nation.


EDIT: I should note I argue with Texas secess all the time, lets play. Next I remind you that you owe the US trillions. Please pay up.

It wouldn't be a rebellion, they just want some and just some time to think things over. Maybe they just move next door for a while and see how things work out with mexico

the could easily start exporting oil, or pull a trump, sue us if you want it.

they only import 25% electricity, that's hardly a big way, and easily solved by refurbishing the san onofre station.

As for energy:
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ca

Excluding federal offshore areas, California ranked third in the nation in crude oil production in 2015, despite an overall decline in production since the mid-1980s.
California ranked third in the nation in oil refining capacity as of January 2016, with a combined capacity of almost 2 million barrels per calendar day from the state's 18 operable refineries.
In 2014, California’s per capita energy consumption ranked 49th in the nation; the state's low use of energy was due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs.
In 2015, California ranked fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation, second in net electricity generation from all other renewable energy resources, and first as a producer of electricity from biomass, geothermal, and solar energy.
In 2015, California ranked 15th in net electricity generation from nuclear power after one of the state's two nuclear plants, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, permanently ceased operations in June 2013.
Average site electricity consumption in California homes is among the lowest in the nation (6.9 megawatthours per year), according to EIA's Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Will it ever happen, of course not, but if they could, they'd hardly be in the dire straights you and others predict.

 SickSix wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

um...Gettysburg ring a bell?

Lincoln had no authority to start that war. But it happened and victors set the terms.

It wasn't Lincoln who initiated hostilities, a federal military facility was attacked and seized by Southern secessionists acting under state authority.

I see it more likely (not by much) that the state could "split up" into smaller states.

 whembly wrote:
I see it more likely (not by much) that the state could "split up" into smaller states.

this would be much more likely. Not hugely probable, but far more possible.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I see it more likely (not by much) that the state could "split up" into smaller states.

this would be much more likely. Not hugely probable, but far more possible.

If you broke up California into 3 smaller states, you'd have more electoral votes as each state would have their current representatives plus 2. A net +4 points for the West coasters.

 kronk wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I see it more likely (not by much) that the state could "split up" into smaller states.

this would be much more likely. Not hugely probable, but far more possible.

If you broke up California into 3 smaller states, you'd have more electoral votes as each state would have their current representatives plus 2. A net +4 points for the West coasters.

Aye... there were talks of Texas splitting too.

I guess Austinites wanted their own state.

 kronk wrote:

No. They are not self sufficient with their current spending.

Heh, neither is the entire US!


CA could function on it's own but it still benefits tremendously from being part of the US. There's no real reason to leave.

 SickSix wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

um...Gettysburg ring a bell?

Lincoln had no authority to start that war. But it happened and victors set the terms.

Yes thats what the Texas Secesh said. DO I need to point out the graves of those who believed that as well?

 kronk wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

 whembly wrote:
I see it more likely (not by much) that the state could "split up" into smaller states.

this would be much more likely. Not hugely probable, but far more possible.

If you broke up California into 3 smaller states, you'd have more electoral votes as each state would have their current representatives plus 2. A net +4 points for the West coasters.

Yeah but their college football teams will still play lousy defense.

Well, yeah. Obviously!

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 kronk wrote:
I forgot about electricity. Lots of wind and solar out in the desert areas, but enough to cover the state? Do I recall there being rolling black outs in the early 2000s?

California is an energy importer in a big way. Cut off the fertilizer and they are a massive food importer as well.

or if they just claimed all the military bases, the could easily invade and take arizona, nevada, and oregon

As noted, the US troops on those bases might disagree. I seem to remember some time where rebels fired on a US base before...

the water could be it's only issue, but they'd have the money to buy it, and the US would be in a recession from cali leaving they'd gladly sell it.

Why would the US sell it? In history regions rebelling usually don't have very good relations with the former nation.


EDIT: I should note I argue with Texas secess all the time, lets play. Next I remind you that you owe the US trillions. Please pay up.

It wouldn't be a rebellion, they just want some and just some time to think things over. Maybe they just move next door for a while and see how things work out with mexico

the could easily start exporting oil, or pull a trump, sue us if you want it.

they only import 25% electricity, that's hardly a big way, and easily solved by refurbishing the san onofre station.

As for energy:
http://www.eia.gov/state/?sid=ca

Excluding federal offshore areas, California ranked third in the nation in crude oil production in 2015, despite an overall decline in production since the mid-1980s.
California ranked third in the nation in oil refining capacity as of January 2016, with a combined capacity of almost 2 million barrels per calendar day from the state's 18 operable refineries.
In 2014, California’s per capita energy consumption ranked 49th in the nation; the state's low use of energy was due in part to its mild climate and its energy efficiency programs.
In 2015, California ranked fourth in the nation in conventional hydroelectric generation, second in net electricity generation from all other renewable energy resources, and first as a producer of electricity from biomass, geothermal, and solar energy.
In 2015, California ranked 15th in net electricity generation from nuclear power after one of the state's two nuclear plants, the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, permanently ceased operations in June 2013.
Average site electricity consumption in California homes is among the lowest in the nation (6.9 megawatthours per year), according to EIA's Residential Energy Consumption Survey.

Will it ever happen, of course not, but if they could, they'd hardly be in the dire straights you and others predict.

Note the key phrase "including FEDERAL offshore areas" guess what you don't get if you leave...
You can rank all you want but you are an electric importer in a big way from the neighboring states and even Canada.

Thats ok. We are a union. We joined for mutual growth and protection.

 Frazzled wrote:


Note the key phrase "including FEDERAL offshore areas" guess what you don't get if you leave...
You can rank all you want but you are an electric importer in a big way from the neighboring states and even Canada.

Thats ok. We are a union. We joined for mutual growth and protection.

those federal offshore areas would belong to california. the waters belong to the coast they boarder out to 3 miles or so.

I still don't get how 25% is importing in a big way.

But it has been entertaining and a fun thought experiment.

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Note the key phrase "including FEDERAL offshore areas" guess what you don't get if you leave...
You can rank all you want but you are an electric importer in a big way from the neighboring states and even Canada.

Thats ok. We are a union. We joined for mutual growth and protection.

those federal offshore areas would belong to california. the waters belong to the coast they boarder out to 3 miles or so.

Why would the fed give it up? What are you going to do about it?

I still don't get how 25% is importing in a big way.

Shut off 25% and watch the rolling brownouts.

But it has been entertaining and a fun thought experiment.

Oh yea. Usually these things are very hostile because the prosecesh types typically are what you might call"slack jawed militia revolutionary wannabe confederates" who can't get over that civil war thing. Much more pleasant

You should define a few things first.
Is it a peaceful breakup? Why?

If so, you should not assume you get anything from the fed unless you take the related federal debt.

If not, well thats a whole different ballgame.

I answer there Calexit the same way I would answer a Texit (Texas Exit). I would send in Federal troops and arrest the ringleaders for Treason.

I hate secessionists.

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:


Note the key phrase "including FEDERAL offshore areas" guess what you don't get if you leave...
You can rank all you want but you are an electric importer in a big way from the neighboring states and even Canada.

Thats ok. We are a union. We joined for mutual growth and protection.

those federal offshore areas would belong to california. the waters belong to the coast they boarder out to 3 miles or so.

Why would the fed give it up? What are you going to do about it?

I still don't get how 25% is importing in a big way.

Shut off 25% and watch the rolling brownouts.

But it has been entertaining and a fun thought experiment.

Oh yea. Usually these things are very hostile because the prosecesh types typically are what you might call"slack jawed militia revolutionary wannabe confederates" who can't get over that civil war thing. Much more pleasant

You should define a few things first.
Is it a peaceful breakup? Why?

If so, you should not assume you get anything from the fed unless you take the related federal debt.

If not, well thats a whole different ballgame.

it's international law, so in the end cali would get those waters.

It would have to be peaceful, They'd definitely have to plan for the departure, doing in reaction to the election would leave it in a mess. There's treaties to plan, the UN to join, and some power plants and desalinization plants to be built.

The military bases would become the center issue I'm sure, as the military seems to be 1/3 cali, 1/3 texas, and 1/3 new yorkers, the people on the base could go either way. Let's say the locals aided with the texans (because they love a good rebellion and always wanted to secede themselves) took over the bases, once the bullets start flying cali couldn't stand up to the other 49. Especially as a reactionary tactic, like you said the water & power would be cut off quickly. so the only way cali could leave would be peacefully.

They could take the dept, as it's the 6th's strongest economy, without being burdened by the obligations to the states, the nation dept is what 20 trillion, so cali's share would only be 400 billion, so they'd agree to take that on along with a water treaty. They're already in the black budget wise, they could be dept free in 100 years.

While cali could easily handle the debt, the loss of federal revenue to the states would surely plunge the other 49 into a deep recession, that it might not ever recover from. Which is why they'd never allow it.

so it looks like cali will just have to suffer through a trump presidency, and try to pass the 61st amendment in the mean time

Isn't the group that's advocating for this "Calexit" just some Silicon Valley types? I really would want to see what the rest of the state thinks rather then one of the most privileged area's within the state.

it could be the bases for a fun board game, cali leaves, and arizona follows, and they join with mexico. That would grant them a large fighting force to take on the states.

diplomacy deal for texas or other states to join.
naval battle along the west coast as hawaii & washington try to barracade the area. blow up the panama canal to confine the second fleet to the gulf.
and the always enjoyable bombing runs. while the troops move across the states.

if you take this idea and make the game, send me a free copy

sirlynchmob wrote:
it could be the bases for a fun board game, cali leaves, and arizona follows, and they join with mexico. That would grant them a large fighting force to take on the states.

diplomacy deal for texas or other states to join.
naval battle along the west coast as hawaii & washington try to barracade the area. blow up the panama canal to confine the second fleet to the gulf.
and the always enjoyable bombing runs. while the troops move across the states.

if you take this idea and make the game, send me a free copy

Texas wouldn't join with Mexico. Texas might conquer Mexico just out of force of habit.

 Frazzled wrote:

sirlynchmob wrote:
it could be the bases for a fun board game, cali leaves, and arizona follows, and they join with mexico. That would grant them a large fighting force to take on the states.

diplomacy deal for texas or other states to join.
naval battle along the west coast as hawaii & washington try to barracade the area. blow up the panama canal to confine the second fleet to the gulf.
and the always enjoyable bombing runs. while the troops move across the states.

if you take this idea and make the game, send me a free copy

Texas wouldn't join with Mexico. Texas might conquer Mexico just out of force of habit.

Texas would only do that to *protect* the queso & tequila reserves... for their own good of course.

It would never happen. After the civil war the USA made it pretty clear that nobody gets to leave no matter how badly they want to. Throw in a Republican dominated government right now, and I'd imagine anything that would make Californians happy would be heavily voted down.

Even if they did, most of their water comes from neighboring states, and they rely on support from the rest of the country for a variety of things, like wildland firefighting crews, because Californians couldn't ration water if their lives depended on it. If they thoroughly ticked off the USA (for example, by leaving) they'd be in a rougher spot than they think.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
because Californians couldn't ration water if their lives depended on it.

LA uses roughly the same amount of water now as they did in the 90s. We can ration water just fine, the issue is that we have more people than all the neighboring states combined so it's no surprise we still need more than we have.

Its also not individuals that are the issues with water conservation in California barring the obnoxious exceptions in Rancho Santa Fe type places. Its agriculture followed by campus (business and educational) landscaping.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 SickSix wrote:

 whembly wrote:
There's no point. The rest of the country won't allow CA to leave.

I wouldn't be so sure.

People forget that the Union only exists because the States allow it to. There is nothing 'illegal' about secession.

A single state seceding is probably a bad idea. But when that state isn't under a federal tax burden I could see the financial situation actually going in their favor.

um...Gettysburg ring a bell?

Lincoln had no authority to start that war. But it happened and victors set the terms.

It wasn't Lincoln who initiated hostilities, a federal military facility was attacked and seized by Southern secessionists acting under state authority.

Nah we all know what really happened.

Love it. California is a happy part of the USA, and has been a long time. The people think of themselves as Americans and don't have a strong alternate identity. Yet now bcause you have Trump heading towards the White house some people think it all has to die. Riots in Oakland etc. Calexit is just another extension of the farce, it can be ignored except for the object lesson it provides.

To paraphrase a saying about SJWs "your political union ends where my feelings begin".

Who do these boneheads think they are. They remind me of the 30k or so people in Northern England who tried to petition for Northunberland to become part of Scotland because Cameron won the election in 2015. Northumberland has been part of England uince we were throwing spears and found the longbow and chainmail to be neat new ideas. Yet to some heartbroken lefties the idea of a Tory government was too much to bear they thought it would be better if a whole region of the country which isnt the least bit Scottish became so to salve their achy hearts.
However what the Brits do a little the Yanks manage to do a lot. Yes, Trump is not the preferred candidate for many, but isnt this always the case in elections? Yes many don't like his policies or his rhetoric, but like it or not he won fair and square. If there is a silver lining to a Trump presidency it is that there is now an opportunity to educate the over-entitled that America stands for: one citizen - one vote, not: one SJW - one vote. And if the citizenry elect a candidate that SJW's dont like then the SJW's can show the societal tolerance they so love, because the people have spoken.

If these rabble rousers were as interested in the plight of ordinary disenfranchised voters who lost their jobs due to the crash of 2008 and never able to recover as they were about 'hurt feelings', then perhaps that multitude which Trump exploited would have been elevated and steered to vote against him, but that would require these false progressives to actually care about genuine social advancement, which they largely don't just as the DNC doesn't.

Pst you know that most countries aren't completely self sufficient. They don't have to especially if they have you know access to water and shipments of goods.

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
As someone living in California his whole life, I agree with Vaktathi's assessment. It isn't going to happen.

Weren't people saying that about Trump taking over the USA?

OK, barring existing SCOTUS rulings and other legal matters; let's say that California were to try and exit the Union, the people ratified it, and they signaled their desire to withdraw; what would happen?

First, I don't get the assumption of violence. Such entities as the UN didn't exist 150 years ago. If the majority of the California population were to all stand-up one day and say, "F you America, we're done, we're out, thanks for the fun and you can keep all of the fish."

But no one raised a hand in anger, they all just collectively stopped participating in the Federal government, "stopped paying taxes, etc." They just said to Congress and the sitting executive, "Let's have a sit down and work out a divorce."

They could offer some lucrative deals to companies who stayed, work out ways to pay for federal land and facilities, etc. There's nothing to say it need end in bloodshed unless people are so keen to seen Kent State on a huge scale. Generally the world frowns on military gunning down unarmed civilians....something about international courts.

Interesting thought experiment. There are solutions for most, if not all, of the potential issues:
1. Desalination plants.
2. Tariffs on imports since most of the crap from China flows through California ports. If/until the US makes deals with Mexico or expands facilities in Oregon and Washington, there's not way for the current volume of international trade that flows through ports in California to make it out.
3. Charge docking fees for US navy (see 2), Oregon and Washington don't have the port facilities to accommodate the number of ships served by California docks.
4. Explore other sources of energy. Ramp up oil production, buy cheap coal from China and other places for coal plants, etc.

This wouldn't be a wake up in the morning and everything's off kind of event, a peaceful transition would take time, discussion, and planning on both sides. If it's the majority of the population, the US govt couldn't jail and entire state nor does it have the resources to enact martial law on an entire state (not to mention the repercussions that would have as a PR incident). You can't make people stay if they ALL want to leave.

 agnosto wrote:
First, I don't get the assumption of violence. Such entities as the UN didn't exist 150 years ago.

Why do you believe that to be relevant? The United States federal government recognizes no higher sovereign authority than itself, and the UN lacks the conventional military power to go up against the United States military.

But no one raised a hand in anger, they all just collectively stopped participating in the Federal government, "stopped paying taxes, etc." They just said to Congress and the sitting executive, "Let's have a sit down and work out a divorce."

Well, if they did that, then presumably they wouldn't resist being arrested by federal marshals or whichever federal agency had the jurisdiction.

They could offer some lucrative deals to companies who stayed, work out ways to pay for federal land and facilities, etc. There's nothing to say it need end in bloodshed unless people are so keen to seen Kent State on a huge scale. Generally the world frowns on military gunning down unarmed civilians....something about international courts.

The United States isn't subject to international courts. We're not a member of the ICC, and no one has the power to compel a United States citizen to show up for a trial within it.

This wouldn't be a wake up in the morning and everything's off kind of event, a peaceful transition would take time, discussion, and planning on both sides. If it's the majority of the population, the US govt couldn't jail and entire state nor does it have the resources to enact martial law on an entire state (not to mention the repercussions that would have as a PR incident). You can't make people stay if they ALL want to leave.

The entire state wouldn't all want to leave. Even during the American revolution, it was only about 20% of the population that was actually in favor of separating from Great Britain. Also bear in mind huge swathes of California are deep red.

If a Calexit was on the cards, I would fully back President Trump in using military force to bring them to back into the Union with Federal troops.

Seaward wrote:
Also bear in mind huge swathes of California are deep red.

While true, it should also be noted that relatively few people live in most of those deep red areas, with lots of those counties that look very big (some are physically larger than some states) and very red on maps having populations of merely low 5 or even just 4 digits (see Modoc and Inyo counties), while a county like LA County, which looks smaller than say, Inyo, has literally 500x the population.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I think the San Andreas fault will force California to secede at some point.

That's what I'm saying!

 Skinnereal wrote:

 DarkTraveler777 wrote:
As someone living in California his whole life, I agree with Vaktathi's assessment. It isn't going to happen.

Weren't people saying that about Trump taking over the USA?

Sure. However, the path to Trump's victory was not nearly as convoluted as a California succession would be so I don't think the two are even remotely comparable. Unless your point is "stranger things have happened" then, okay, but the odds are so slim as to not really merit much consideration in my opinion.

Now, if we are talking about a coalition of states leaving the union, backed by one or more major foreign powers, then maybe "Calexit" could, possibly, maybe, be a reality. Short of that, I don't see it happening, especially if it was California trying to exit alone .

Seaward wrote:

Why do you believe that to be relevant? The United States federal government recognizes no higher sovereign authority than itself, and the UN lacks the conventional military power to go up against the United States military.

That's an odd conceit since we depend on international consensus on a number of issues though not internal matters of course. Again, the assumption of military violence is a bit off since the UN accomplishes a great deal through sanctions. If the US federal government were to start killing citizens to the point a foreign power, like, I don't know Russia or China, took issue with it and brought it up at the UN, economic sanctions would hurt.

Well, if they did that, then presumably they wouldn't resist being arrested by federal marshals or whichever federal agency had the jurisdiction.

Arresting millions of people isn't really a viable option.

The United States isn't subject to international courts. We're not a member of the ICC, and no one has the power to compel a United States citizen to show up for a trial within it.

Are you certain? Because we have a sitting judge on the court. http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2&p3=1

The entire state wouldn't all want to leave. Even during the American revolution, it was only about 20% of the population that was actually in favor of separating from Great Britain. Also bear in mind huge swathes of California are deep red.

You just made my point for me. It only takes a majority. In more recent times look to the Scottish vote to leave the UK; I believe they're looking for 60%. Recent polling indicates that 2/3 of the Scottish people are against another vote to leave the UK but it's still a good example of how something like that could, hypothetically, happen.

 agnosto wrote:

Seaward wrote:

Why do you believe that to be relevant? The United States federal government recognizes no higher sovereign authority than itself, and the UN lacks the conventional military power to go up against the United States military.

That's an odd conceit since we depend on international consensus on a number of issues though not internal matters of course. Again, the assumption of military violence is a bit off since the UN accomplishes a great deal through sanctions. If the US federal government were to start killing citizens to the point a foreign power, like, I don't know Russia or China, took issue with it and brought it up at the UN, economic sanctions would hurt.

It's not odd... it's literally the Truth.

We could tell the UN to feth off... and threats of sanctions under the UN aegis fizzles...

We have the UN veto permanently. Nothing happens without our say so.

Well, if they did that, then presumably they wouldn't resist being arrested by federal marshals or whichever federal agency had the jurisdiction.

Arresting millions of people isn't really a viable option.

Seaward was being sarcastic. And you're forgetting about Gettysburg.

The United States isn't subject to international courts. We're not a member of the ICC, and no one has the power to compel a United States citizen to show up for a trial within it.

Are you certain? Because we have a sitting judge on the court. http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2&p3=1

Yes. We never ratified that treaty.

The entire state wouldn't all want to leave. Even during the American revolution, it was only about 20% of the population that was actually in favor of separating from Great Britain. Also bear in mind huge swathes of California are deep red.

You just made my point for me. It only takes a majority. In more recent times look to the Scottish vote to leave the UK; I believe they're looking for 60%. Recent polling indicates that 2/3 of the Scottish people are against another vote to leave the UK but it's still a good example of how something like that could, hypothetically, happen.

We wouldn't let CA secede... Civil War #2 won't end will for CA.

 whembly wrote:
We wouldn't let CA secede... Civil War #2 won't end will for CA.

There's nothing to "let" happen because states have no legal recourse to secede from the Union.

It's just all a fantasy, except not as exciting or interesting as actual fantasy.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 whembly wrote:
We wouldn't let CA secede... Civil War #2 won't end will for CA.

There's nothing to "let" happen because states have no legal recourse to secede from the Union.

It's just all a fantasy, except not as exciting or interesting as actual fantasy.

Aye... Civil War #1 ended that idea.

More entertaining thinking about splitting up the state... but, blue team shouldn't want that.

 agnosto wrote:
That's an odd conceit since we depend on international consensus on a number of issues though not internal matters of course. Again, the assumption of military violence is a bit off since the UN accomplishes a great deal through sanctions. If the US federal government were to start killing citizens to the point a foreign power, like, I don't know Russia or China, took issue with it and brought it up at the UN, economic sanctions would hurt.

Economic sanctions would hurt our trade partners just as much, if not more. Since you're talking about a huge chunk of the world? Pretty unlikely.

But no, it's not an "odd conceit." The US does not submit to any sovereignty except its own. That's one of the main reasons we're not a member of the ICC.

Arresting millions of people isn't really a viable option.

How'd the millions of people in prison wind up there, then?

Are you certain?

Yes. We never ratified the ICC treaty, and we have a law on the books requiring us to use military force, if necessary, to retrieve any American servicemember tried under it. Which is a law that commits us to a scenario where we invade Holland.

Because we have a sitting judge on the court. http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2&p3=1

That's the ICJ, which is different from the ICC, and something we can functionally ignore since it lacks jurisdiction without our consent.

You just made my point for me. It only takes a majority. In more recent times look to the Scottish vote to leave the UK; I believe they're looking for 60%. Recent polling indicates that 2/3 of the Scottish people are against another vote to leave the UK but it's still a good example of how something like that could, hypothetically, happen.

I don't think you understand that states cannot simply leave. If 20% of California wanted to leave and form their own state, they would not be allowed to do so. They would have to successfully defeat the US military in order to pull it off.

Frankly if you get to the point of needing a second Civil War to solve your internal cultural wrangles the USA will have failed as a democracy.

 whembly wrote:
More entertaining thinking about splitting up the state... but, blue team shouldn't want that.

That's still pretty unlikely because there's just too much that would need to happen. It's possible, just unlikely:

Article IV, Section 3, Clause 1 wrote:New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

Texas may or may not be able to split into five smaller states, but whether that would be constitutional is a matter of debate. Those in favor say that Texas has Congressional "pre-approval" to split since it was in the resolution of 1845 that admitted the state into the Union. The argument against it claims that resolution is void since Texas seceded to join the CSA, but that's not entire true in the eyes of government because the Supreme Court decided that Texas (and the rest of the states) never really left the Union.

Sirlynchmob you are vastly over estimating CA chance of success.

Roughly a third of your state is available for agriculture with the rest being desert.

You have no oil.

Your economy is a shambles.

You have no water.

Texas has all of those things.

Funny how usa is quick to support rebels elsewhere but is dead set against mere idea part of usa wouldn't want to continue as part of usa. Say something about double standards.

Wel, the U.S.A only like Rebels if it is in their interest. If there where Rebels in England, we would be againsts them for sure, but if there where some in North Korea, we would be for them.
Loosing a large Economy is against our interest.

Mitochondria wrote:
Sirlynchmob you are vastly over estimating CA chance of success.

Roughly a third of your state is available for agriculture with the rest being desert.

You have no oil.

Your economy is a shambles.

You have no water.

Texas has all of those things.

While that's rather hyperbolic, I can say we also have hippies. Crazy liberal hippies. They constitute a tiny fraction of the population, which is conveniently the same fraction that's actually giving Calexit serious thought.

Mitochondria wrote:
Sirlynchmob you are vastly over estimating CA chance of success.

Roughly a third of your state is available for agriculture with the rest being desert.

You have no oil.

Your economy is a shambles.

You have no water.

Texas has all of those things.

This is a rather silly statement. CA pumps 8-9% of the nations crude oil, arguably enough for domestic use if need be (or close). Her economy is the strongest in the nation and one of, if not the, largest drivers of innovation. The state is not 66% unusable desert (and modern hydroponics make this less and less relevant), and has access to all the water it needs *if* it had to go it alone (not ready right now, but it could manage it with desalination plants if it has to, which it eventually likely will either way).

CA has issues, particularly cost of living issues (enough that I moved away), but most of these things are either not true or are not unmanageable. Not that any of this means anything, CA isnt going anywhere and nobody in CA is seriously advocating this, but CA isnt some economic disaster with no access to critical resources either.

Texas has all of those things.

This is a rather silly statement. CA pumps 8-9% of the nations crude oil, arguably enough for domestic use if need be (or close).

 kronk wrote:
When you have enough to start action, someone breaks out a hacky-sack and some joints.

CA just legalized weed... Nothing will happen.

Its medicinal!

 agnosto wrote:
But no one raised a hand in anger, they all just collectively stopped participating in the Federal government, "stopped paying taxes, etc." They just said to Congress and the sitting executive, "Let's have a sit down and work out a divorce."

LOL, the Feds would seize *everything* for unpaid taxes. The Treasury will compel payment, one way or another.

See how it goes for "Soveign Men on the Land". It's an automatic lose.

 Frazzled wrote:

***Thats why you complain about higher prices, because no one else ships gasoline there. Any oil on federal land would stay Federal US oil.

Im not sure as to the actual distribution issues, only the production, so I have no idea how that would work. Either way I assume both Texas and CA could manage on their own or mostly so in these regards.

***It is strong.But will be far weaker when the military defense and aerospace pulls out.

Possible, but the New California Republic would have its own needs in that regard, and with all that expensive infrastructure and experienced employees already in place, its not like these companies would just be gone overnight...especially with all those new markets that would open up with access to such information and industries.

CA leaving would be a gigantic issue for the US federal govt in this regard given the insane amount of classified development IP kept in the state. Far more of an issue than anything physical. All of a sudden the complete techincal package for the F35 being available would certainly be an issue

You're right. Probably more than that. Everything south of Fresno is a damn desert.

Well...I dont know about it all being desert, but I do know that Fresno is just...awful. Only marginally more tolerable than...Bakersfield *shudder*.

You are importing substantial percentages of your daily water and power needs. Secede and you instantly have massive-life threatening problems.

absolutely they would, but they are problems that could be addressed in time, and CA has things the rest of the nation desires and depends on as well, particularly in regards to communications infrastructure.

And thats before Mexico decides to retake Norte Mexico back.

If they can break through the great I5 traffic wall, theyre welcome to it

Pretty sure nobody's taking NWS Seal Beach, nor San Diego without a massive fight. Navy's storing nukes there!

OTOH, Marines are a bunch of lightweight pushovers, so they'll hand over their base on anyone's say-so.

 TheMeanDM wrote:
So folks never thought that Britain would leave the EU.

Do people think that it is actually feasible for California to leave the United States?

http://www.latimes.com/nation/politics/trailguide/la-na-election-aftermath-updates-trail-after-donald-trump-elected-president-1478747229-htmlstory.html

In short no.

If they do leave we'll end up with more republican candidates. Do left wing people really want that? Same thing for when texas threatened similar and then shut up about it. Sides it's basically the same thing. If texas leaves more left wing presidents and such.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Pretty sure nobody's taking NWS Seal Beach, nor San Diego without a massive fight. Navy's storing nukes there!

OTOH, Marines are a bunch of lightweight pushovers, so they'll hand over their base on anyone's say-so.

Navy, getting the Marines where they need to be for 240+ years.

I think the scenario is that the Federales permit Cali to secede. Trying to force the issue would be comical.

Possible, but the New California Republic would have its own needs in that regard, and with all that expensive infrastructure and experienced employees already in place, its not like these companies would just be gone overnight...especially with all those new markets that would open up with access to such information and industries.

CA leaving would be a gigantic issue for the US federal govt in this regard given the insane amount of classified development IP kept in the state. Far more of an issue than anything physical. All of a sudden the complete techincal package for the F35 being available would certainly be an issue

All that IP and all those people are leaving before Cali even secedes.

Well...I dont know about it all being desert, but I do know that Fresno is just...awful. Only marginally more tolerable than...Bakersfield *shudder*.

Yea. I drove up to Fresno once on a day trip lark. I drove through it not realizing it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its medicinal!

It's recreational. they've had medical for almost 10 years now.

Medicine for the soul baby.

OT but I believe Arkansas just approved medicinal weed. Wow

Again I'm not besmirching Cali. It would have more going for it than most states. After all, it could be Louisiana. They tried to do a revival of Rocky Horro Picture Show. When they started the "Time Warp Dance" skit they looked around, realized they were in a literal timewarp and got the heck out of dodge.

 Frazzled wrote:

Possible, but the New California Republic would have its own needs in that regard, and with all that expensive infrastructure and experienced employees already in place, its not like these companies would just be gone overnight...especially with all those new markets that would open up with access to such information and industries.

CA leaving would be a gigantic issue for the US federal govt in this regard given the insane amount of classified development IP kept in the state. Far more of an issue than anything physical. All of a sudden the complete techincal package for the F35 being available would certainly be an issue

All that IP and all those people are leaving before Cali even secedes.

Hrm, in such a hypothetical event, I'd be surprised. Data is copied and recopied, stored in many places to prevent loss, and accessed by many and with many available connections. Ensuring that it leaves a geographical location both physically and in terms of electronic access for something like that would be practically impossible, especially with so much telecom and data stuff in CA. Likewise, the people would be another major issue, many might leave, many might not. Pulling twenty thousand drone engineers out of CA when many may not want to leave would be problematic for instance. Its these kinds of things that make civil wars so messy.

Well...I dont know about it all being desert, but I do know that Fresno is just...awful. Only marginally more tolerable than...Bakersfield *shudder*.

Yea. I drove up to Fresno once on a day trip lark. I drove through it not realizing it.

Nothing of value was lost

Hrm, in such a hypothetical event, I'd be surprised. Data is copied and recopied, stored in many places to prevent loss, and accessed by many and with many available connections. Ensuring that it leaves a geographical location both physically and in terms of electronic access for something like that would be practically impossible, especially with so much telecom and data stuff in CA. Likewise, the people would be another major issue, many might leave, many might not. Pulling twenty thousand drone engineers out of CA when many may not want to leave would be problematic for instance. Its these kinds of things that make civil wars so messy.

They are US citizens working for a US company which would be leaving. They would just be part of a herd of people bailing out. I reference Pakistan / India as a more extreme example of the population movements as they separated. Having worked with more than a fair share of them, they were some seriously patriotic peoples.

EDIT: The wife and I would still like to take the wine train when we retire (whats that flask hubby, that doesn't look like wine...)

India and pakistan had major ethnic and religious issues behind that in ways CA would not, and had both sides actively pushing people out. With CA, many may want to remain in CA, the US govt would have no way beyond their paycheck to compel them to leave, CA certainly wouldnt be trying to get rid of them, and many of these companies operate internationally anyway. Looking at Europe over the lasr hundred or so years, when developments such as this took place, in most instances, unless forced to leave by the new govt, people generally stayed where they were and everything there came into the possession of whatever new government was in place, particularly the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Soviet Union.

That said, again, I wouldnt ever expect this sort of a thing to ever become close to reality.