4 ms·
> I suppose it depends on what "pass a referendum consistent thereto" means. I have no idea. It means enacting legislation for a secession referendum, and hold
by skissane 4y ago
> I suppose it depends on what "pass a referendum consistent thereto" means. I have no idea.
It means enacting legislation for a secession referendum, and holding the referendum. It doesn’t mean secession is going to win the referendum.
If Texas held a secession referendum tomorrow, I doubt “Yes” would get anywhere near a majority-and I’m sure they know that. It would be an exercise in moving the Overton window, not in actually seceding. Which I think is their whole point-actual secession would be enormously risky for unclear benefit, making it a topic of live political debate could have great reward for some.
- jfengel 4y agoThat does seem consistent with my suggestion that it was talking out of both sides of their mouth. I'm quite certain they're not saying out loud that they expect it to fail. And that they are making promises in some quarters that they will endeavor to see it pass.
- skissane 4y agoSecessionist threats can be a useful strategy to get what you want. Spain and the UK are examples of countries whose increased decentralisation (greater power for regional governments) is largely an attempt to subdue secessionist demands, if those secessionist demands had never existed that decentralisation may well never have happened-certainly not to the same degree. Similarly, the Canadian political establishment invested immense resources in constitutional reforms to try to satisfy Quebec nationalists (the Meech Lake Accord and Charlottetown Accord), although those reforms failed - without the threat of Quebec secession they likely never would have put so much time into it. Whether that strategy works as well in the very different political context of the US remains to be seen, but it isn’t impossible that it might