Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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.