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”.
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”.
I would absolutely expect Texas to throw a fit that they would be treated like a foreign country that now has to do trade deals and visas and shit rather than just a cool super state that can do whatever they want.
If you or anyone would like to see Brits or Texans ‘suffer their consequences’ for a minority of misinformed people deciding the future of their state, you need to get some empathy and perspective. Texans haven’t voted for this, and 17 million people decided Brexit for a country of nearly 70 million.
Removed by mod
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”.
Removed by mod
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”.
Removed by mod
I would absolutely expect Texas to throw a fit that they would be treated like a foreign country that now has to do trade deals and visas and shit rather than just a cool super state that can do whatever they want.
If you or anyone would like to see Brits or Texans ‘suffer their consequences’ for a minority of misinformed people deciding the future of their state, you need to get some empathy and perspective. Texans haven’t voted for this, and 17 million people decided Brexit for a country of nearly 70 million.
Removed by mod