Indeed. The better comparator (given the origins and basic nature of the EU) would be the practicalities resulting from Irish independence from the UK a hundred years ago: Irish citizens retaining rights to reside, vote and work in the UK and access to state social benefits (otherwise too complicated and inflammatory to disentangle), Irish currency pegged to sterling until relatively recently, the UK retaining rights to use certain Irish ports for military purposes for some years, and so on.
How would TX export and import when the Gulf of Mexico belongs to the US?
Why would it belong to the US? Texas would have its own coast, and numerous of nations would share that body of water.
The Gulf doesn’t “belong” to anyone. Each country around the perimeter has various rights out to 3, 12, & 200 miles offshore of their shoreline.
Would we call this “Texit”?
RedNexit.
Nice!
Canada doesn’t hate the majority of the American public, while the pro-secessionist faction of Texas aka the far right does. Realistically a seceded Texas would be quasi-fascist at best and a dangerous place to visit; if anything North Korea would be less dangerous. It would be the ind of place where you would be at danger from both the government and random lynch mobs looking for “liberals” and “commies” to kill.
And those political issues are a major reason why I think Texas would be screwed if it seceded. Even assuming a really generous attitude from the rest of the US, they’d screw themselves over with their far right political culture without the federal government keeping them from being even more self destructive than they already are. Some hypothetical well-run Nation of Texas could do well enough; it has the size, geographic position and resources for it. But it wouldn’t be well run; it isn’t now and removing the restraints of the federal government would let it run right of a cliff.
Study international and maritime law concerning national and international waters.
Red Dead Redemption?
That’s good.
Based on @Der_Trihs spot on and non-joking response 3 posts up I also thought about “Fascexit”. Which is pronounced a lot like “Fetishtic” which suits their addictions to guns & aggression.
That’s not how things work here. If you want to assert something, back it up with a citation, please.
You want the reading material, here it is. (UNCLOS)
The US has accepted as customary international law (excepting Part XI and hence has not ratified) the 1982 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, under which even landlocked states have a right of access to and from the sea. A newly sovereign country with it’s own coast line would have access to international waters to a degree which would need to be negotiated, but could not be in breach of this convention.
Article 2:
1. The sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters and, in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters, to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea.
2. This sovereignty extends to the air space over the territorial sea as well as to its bed and subsoil.
3. The sovereignty over the territorial sea is exercised subject to this Convention and to other rules of international law:
Just to play devil’s advocate here( note that I don’t disagree with you, I have my own state that is doing their damnedest to legislate us back to some fantastically repressive version of feudal dark ages) why do you think that if they were granted independence, that after a predictable rough start, they wouldn’t get their crap together at least enough to not become a failed state?
GIGO? (Garbage In, Garbage Out).
There’s been a lot of talk about legalities, but little about what corporations would do. Detaching Texas from the rest of the U. S. is going to be complicated and expensive for most companies. Smaller companies not based in Texas would most likely move their Texas based operations elsewhere. Larger ones would probably flex their political clout to make sure it doesn’t happen
Because that’s the point of secession in the first place (not that they’d word it that way, but…) The point of the desire to secede is to create what would in fact be a fascist state, and the people who would like to be better would be driven out, imprisoned, enslaved, or killed almost immediately. And they’d rather be a failed state than a prospering, well functioning one where “those people” share in the prosperity. “The cruelty is the point”; the Right about all else wants to hurt the people they hate - which is most people - no matter the cost to themselves.
That’s a core of the reasons they’d be a disaster; they’d gut themselves in their hatred. Knowingly. Because the hate matters more to the Right than anything else does, including themselves.
The counter-example I’d use to that is…(Godwin’s Law warning,) Germany in the late 1930s. Were they full of hate? Sure. Did they get their shit together and become a highly developed, advanced, powerful nation by the standards of their time, with good healthcare, science, engineering (by their time?) Sure.
Being full of right-wing hatred, and being competent and good at something, aren’t contradictory at all.
Yeah, SS deposits into the bank of your choice. They have no way of knowing where your meat body is.
We’re talking about Texas here.