• ricecake@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    9 months ago

    I mean, we’ve also seen a lot of cases of the exact opposite. It’s entirely a question of which position is held to be long term better not just to the parties in question, but to the actual politicians as well.

    The UK is more valuable to the EU as a less favorable trading partner than as a pariah, and there was no plausible way for the EU to convince it’s members that there was any course to take other than letting them leave exactly as fast as the treaties said they could.
    They made it about as painful as they could while fulfilling their treaty obligations.

    There is no defined legal mechanism for a state to leave the union. There’s no long term incentive for politicians to create one. There’s no individual incentive for one either, at the national level.

    Punishing secessionists to maintain precedent would be the only viable move for any politician.
    Of course you don’t let them starve, but you also don’t let ships into your territorial waters near areas with violent insurgents, and you warn your neighbors that trade will suffer if they’re found to be supplying said insurgents.

    It’s literally the position of the US government that secession is not possible, not just “not permitted”.
    States didn’t seceed during the civil war, they were never their own country, and any treaties or legal actions taken by their supposed governments have no weight.

    Don’t look at it through the lens of “how would the US treat the new nation of Texas”, but “how would the US treat the armed rebels in the state of Texas”.

    • ExLisper@linux.community
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I mean, we’ve also seen a lot of cases of the exact opposite.

      Where? Where was there a recent independence movement that succeeded and was punished by the original country?

      Of course you don’t let them starve, but you also don’t let ships into your territorial waters near areas with violent insurgents, and you warn your neighbors that trade will suffer if they’re found to be supplying said insurgents.

      Wouldn’t blocking supplies starve them?

      Again, this is silly debate as Texas will not secede but if they do it’s crazy to think that US government would just abandon millions of democratic voters living there. There are pretty much two options: either US government would use force to regain the rule there or would pretend that everything is OK and keep cooperating (like Spain and Catalonia, give them more and more independence without formally recognizing it). They definitely would not impose blockade and risk creating North Korea style regime right at their border.

      • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        9 months ago

        Clarifying that it has to succeed is a bit weird. The civil war is the part of the host nation retaliating against the breakaway faction. It’s kinda like asking when has a country ever retaliated after they stop retaliating.

        In any case, the war in Kosovo and the Sri Lankan civil war come to mind. Oh, and Ireland. That one’s nice and complicated.

        You blockade supplies from other countries, because it’s unacceptable for someone to supply armed insurgents.
        Trade and supplies can still be moved around by the Government to ensure they don’t get taken by insurgents.
        That’s just how you do counter insurgency. Keep them from getting food, fuel and ammunition. Give those things to people who agree with you, and make sure they have everything they need.

        I agree that Texas isn’t even going to try, but if they do the US isn’t going to just say “okay, now you can use our shipping lanes to trade with China while we sort this out”.

        • ExLisper@linux.community
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          9 months ago

          Ok, we’re simply talking about two different things. You’re saying that if US would fight Texas they would cut off their supplies. Yes, your right, kind of obvious.

          What I’m talking about is that they would not target civilians even in case of a civil war and in case Texas did somehow became independent (they will not) they would not try to starve all Texans to death as a form of punishment. We were talking about consequence of Texas becoming independent, not about what would happen during the war. Yes, the independence movements are often bloody but even Ireland has good relations with UK now. UK didn’t block their accession to EU or anything like that just to punish them.