I actually was following that story to some degree. As I said, it was a matter of what treaty prescribed method would allow Scotland to become an EU member. Not a whiff that I recall of them being automatic members under international precedent.
BBC-Scottish independence: Would Scotland be in the EU after a Yes vote?
I disagree. But I agree that it’s a foolish fear onthe part of CA. CA is and will remain, depending on who you read, the 5th or 6th largest economy in the WORLD. CA will be just fine, who won’t be just fine is the rest of the US as it scurreys to make up the 13% of the budget Californian’s pay.
Honestly, trade isn’t even an issue. CA will easily out pace the abomination Trump makes out of US trade fiasco.
I honestly gave your question all the attention it deserved.
And frankly, this isn’t a thread about Scotland or the EU, they won’t play a part in any of this.
Just wait until he starts appointing Supreme court justices, up to 3 in his reign I’ve read.
Just wait until China cancels it’s 1+ trillion, (with a T) Boeing orders in favor of Airbus when they get pissed off at his trade policies. Yes, Trump is going to ruin the country, one step at a time.
Just wait until Japan lets American goods perish on the docks again because of a Egomaniac who forgets bankruptcy isn’t here to save him anymore.
Abandoning a sinking ship is the American way. Goes back at least to Vietnam.
You didn’t address my point at all. I didn’t say a thing about California’s trade or economic prospects. I said your little “international precedent” theory would be forcing countries who signed a treaty with the U.S. to suddenly be in a treaty with the Republic of California despite never having negotiated a treaty with California.
nm
CA would not be a member country until it was recognized by other NATO members, including the US, and by the UN, which the US has a veto in. It would be a part of the US in open rebellion against the recognized authority in the US. You have an amusing tendency to skip past multiple major steps to get to the situation you want.
Aside from the fact that it’s not exactly an objective cite, the page you linked doesn’t actually say anything supporting the claim that you made. But again, I’m not holding my breath for you to provide a cite, much less a credible one.
Open rebellion, those dastardly rebels went to the ballot box and voted. Then they revolted by petitioning the other states for recolonization, then they rebelled by addressing Congress. Rebellion all the way.
Look it’s coming to a vote in CA. If it passes, do you really thing CA will be alone? I suspect Washington, Nevada, Oregon and Hawaii will be following suit. The US isn’t going to last forever, it’s going to crack apart, one piece at a time, or it’s going to kill itself with with dept and waste and top heavy mismanagement. No government has lasted forever.
Keep looking it’s there. - or wait, I’ll paste it for you…
*According to international precedents, when a nation splits both successor nations inherit the parent nation’s treaties and agreements unless and until one of the successor nations opts out. That would mean California already be a member of NAFTA, the WTO, and other free-trade treaties. That means no significant barriers to trade with the remaining United States would be enacted and trade would be largely unaffected.
*
I think there was an issue of embarrassment that you’re repeating claims which you have no means to judge the truth of.
The Vienna Convention on the Succession of States provides that former colonies, or “newly independent states,” which are the subject of Chapter XI of the UN Charter, have the presumption that the slate of all treaty obligations are wiped clean.
For states that partition themselves from other states, and are not the subject of Chapter XI, they are presumed to carry forward the treaty obligations of the parent state.
But, there are two big buts.
The first but is that the Vienna Convention specifically directs that any treaty which requires all other treaty members to consent to add new members is not subject to grandfathering. So if a new country wishes to join the Geneva Convention on POWs, which any country may join at any time, the new country just has to signal its intent to be part of the treaty, and then they are bound to it. This is in contrast to treaties like NATO and the EU, in which all other member states must agree to the accession of new members. California, if made independent, would have to apply for NATO membership just like, say, Poland did, and have all other NATO members agree to accession. This is why Scotland would not automatically be a member of NATO, the EU, or various other multilateral organizations.
The second but is that the United States is not a signatory to the Vienna Convention, and therefore this is an entirely academic discussion. In fact, few European countries are, and I bet that no more than 5 or 6 of NATO’s 28 members have signed this treaty.
In short, the authors you’re quoting have no fucking clue what they are talking about, and you are well advised to stop repeating their insane legal theories.
What you forget is that California was already a part of the treaty. Countries are free to dissolve treaties or make new ones. RoCA would obviously make theirs as time allowed. In fact, CA is already working beyond it’s borders with respect to trade.
*Established in 1989, the California Centers for International Trade Development (CITD) are funded by the Chancellor’s Office of the State of California to promote the state’s international trade and competitiveness, assist exporters and importers, and advance economic and job growth. The CITDs assist California business to expand internationally as well as help colleges become more globalized. *
From citd.org
(California Center for International Trade Development.0
Again, you’re wrong. CA has a path to independence. That path is through congress and the various state legislatures. CA will ask the UN for assistance in pursuing this of course.
Other than this, you have no idea how, when or why any country or organization will rule or react to this. you have an opinion. I realize that but others may not.
I simply choose to ignore your opinion.
Your opinion is based on blatant falsehoods. California would not be an automatic member of NATO or NAFTA. It’s been clearly pointed out to you. Do you find it remotely odd that your California National Party’s FAQ has citations for other legal questions but fails to provide one for its “inherits all treaties because of international precedent” claim?
President Trump chooses to ignore objective facts when they conflict with what he wishes were true. One would think that the people of California – who rightly have strong objections to Trump – would take the opposite opinion, which would dictate as a general rule, that political opinions do not determine reality.
What I have laid out for you is the state of international law regarding treaty obligations for new countries. There have been a few dozen new countries established since WWII, and there isn’t really any mystery to how treaties are dealt with under international law.
You’ve quoted a person – whom you have claimed is a lawyer, but the website isn’t working, so I can’t even be sure of that – who made a factual claim that California can have its treaty cake and eat it too. It’s bullshit. It’s total, factual bullshit, and I’ve even pointed you to the Vienna Convention which says in black and white why it is bullshit.
Just because you choose to believe something does not make it true.
And I have never once objected to the idea that if California and the other 49 states wish to part peacefully, that it could be done. Several others have objected to that. But what is perfectly clear is that the UN has zero role in such a process, and in my opinion, the idea of 49 states consenting to California leaving is a delusional fantasy.
What you’re signing up to is the West Coast-oriented version of fake news. You’re being fed what you want to hear, ignoring facts, and thinking everyone around you are poorly informed because we aren’t also swallowing the same tripe.
I don’t particularly care if you think California ought to be independent. That’s up to you. But when you repeat blatant nonsense about how independence might be achieved, you and your “cites” deserve to be corrected. Not sure why you are compelled to ignore verifiable facts that undercut the blatant lies that this particular website – the California National one – is promoting.
Are you in favor of facts or not?
It’s far from blatant nonscense, it’ reality. Petitions are being distributed for signature to those who will circulate them. Then a vote will come, assuming the necessary signatures were collected. Assume CA votes for independence. What will you see the first day? I’d bet international support would be forthcoming. China already offered to arm the Hawaiian secession movement. (Rejected by them of course) I honestly expect that by the time the vote comes around, Trump will have driven more supporters our way than God could himself.
I’ve already specified the path from that point on, a peaceful path. You can keep opining this won’t happen, but we’ll keep working within the laws to bring it about.
I don’t give a crap about your percieved path to independence. That’s why I didn’t talk about for a single second. Ravenman also specifically said thats not what he was arguing against either. We were addressing the blatant falsehood that California would inherit treaties signed by the U.S. government.
With all due respect, I’m not sure you’re tracking the subject of each post in your replies.
For example, I just wrote a long post about how the campaign you’re supporting is spreading factually untrue statements about the laws regarding treaties. Your response has to do with how the campaign is proceeding in California. Those are different issues, obviously. Did you think that I was talking about gathering signatures in California?
How are we to have a debate if we can’t carry on the conversation of a topic from one post to another?
Trump will only be in office for 4 years. A breakup of the USA will be long term. Very, very long term.
If you think international support will be automatic, because the whole world hates Trump–you are wrong. There are more important, long-term issues.By the time the new Nation of California gets itself organized enough to apply for a building permit in Paris or Moscow to construct an embassy,Trump will be long gone.
Other countries don’t really care that much about Trump (his economics, his disdain for global warming, etc are not so different than the rest of the Republican Congress, so no other President will be much better for the Europeans-- if the Congress remains Republican, they won’t approve treaties.) And the internal issues with Trump, which worry so many Americans, are absolutely and totally irrelevant to foreign countries.(abortion, Supreme court, gun control, Mexican immigration, Muslim registry, etc)
So other countries will not join you in your panic to cut off from Trump. They will take a long-term approach, and realize that supporting 30 million Californians this year is not worth pissing off 300 million Americans for decades. They may nod their heads a bit towards you, but then they will sit on their hands quietly, and do nothing to actively support the new nation of California, because the backlash from New York and Washington won’t be worth it to them.
And this of course is why all of these pages and pages of arguments are a moot point. The above will never happen.
Having been absent for a bit after my last post in the thread 3 weeks ago I was catching up and surprised by one of the doozies in the shifting position - NATO membership.
Morgenstern, aside from the odd assertion that you would automatically be a NATO member you are now claiming you want to be? Seriously?!? At the start of the thread you sounded like you wanted a Costa Rica like model (although with less shadow military forces than they’ve actually maintained for good chunks of the time since they cut their military). Now when it’s convenient to your case you want to be part of the world’s largest military alliance with a commitment to respond to Article 5 requests from member states.
Is that your position now? You want to be part of the world’s largest military alliance effectively saying you are the enemies of anyone who attacks the US? You want to build and sustain a military capable of deploying to and assisting in a European ground war like potentially helping Estonia fight off Russia? Isn’t that directly counter to some of the benefits of leaving that you touted at the start of the thread?
Ravenman: You are obviously not aware of the “alternative facts” associated with this issue.