re: Roadmap of how Texas would declare independence

How will small businesses be protected from multi-national corporations after TEXIT?

Texas will be able to protect small businesses much better than the US. This will be done by putting an end to the current system of federalized corporate welfare. Currently, the US government deals out favorable treatment to corporations through subsidies, grants, and tax breaks for large multi-national corporations thereby creating unfair competition for small businesses. By exiting the union and implementing and expanding current Texas business-friendly practices and executing our own trade deals, Texas small businesses will be better protected than ever before.

Support Texas Independence. Join the LINK ]Texas Nationalist Movement.

How will trade work with the United States?

Trade is the major issue that has the clearest path to resolution with the United States and it is one of the most important. International trade is a major driver of the Texas economy. In fact, Texas exports products to virtually every country in the world with total value of exports to just the top 25 totaling between $225 and $285 billion every single year. These are just the figures for products that originate in Texas and doesn’t include imports that flow through our ports and travel across our roads every day. Trade is major.

It is important to examine how trade works between Texas and the rest of the States and then see if there is a fair path to approximate that relationship now that gives Texas some control over the situation.

Currently, Texas is restricted in external trade by the prohibitions on States in Article 1 Section 10 of the U.S. Constitution, fully vesting that authority in the U.S. Congress. Consequently, States have little to no control over the flow of goods and services across their borders and there are certainly no trade tariffs between the States. Within the United States, member States have tariff-free trade and a singular external trade policy. Not accounting for the common currency, this economic relationship between the States is the textbook definition of a customs union. Some would argue that the United States is a fully integrated economic union, but the States retain a large degree of control over their individual fiscal policies, meaning that the United States is not a true economic union.

It is important to note that, other than the United States, there are 13 other customs unions around the world comprising virtually all of Central America, South America, nearly all of Europe, and portions of the old Soviet Union, and major blocs of countries in Africa and the Arabian Peninsula. In these customs unions, independent self-governing countries conduct trade in the same way as the States of the United States without being in a political union.

The clearest and easiest way to ensure that there is absolutely no disruption of trade between the U.S. and an independent Texas is for the two to enter into a customs union, but as equals. Anyone who thinks this would be unusual or far-fetched simply doesn’t understand the way trade works. Most people believe that the only free trade agreement the U.S. is a part of is the multilateral North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. It’s not. The U.S. also has free trade agreements with Australia, Bahrain, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Jordan, Korea, Morocco, Nicaragua, Oman, Panama, Peru, and Singapore, all of which have a smaller GDP than Texas.

A negotiated trade agreement between Texas and the U.S., either through a customs union or a free trade agreement, would ensure continued tariff-free trade between the two. Any agreement should ensure continued access to rail lines, airports, seaports, and highways for the transportation of goods.

If the negotiated agreement is a customs union, the work is done. If, however, the U.S. or Texas opts for a free trade agreement instead, Texas would retain the freedom to pursue bilateral or multilateral trade agreements with any other nations without restriction. That includes negotiating trade agreements with countries that already have free trade agreements with the U.S., ensuring a continuity of trade policy.

In the event that Texas and the U.S. fail to come to terms, Texas could still trade with the U.S. using standard World Trade Organization tariff schedules and trade rules that have already been agreed to by the U.S. In short, Texas could take the tariff tables submitted to the WTO by the U.S., scratch out its name, write in ours, and submit it. This again leaves Texas the freedom to hammer out its own trade policies and trade with every country in the world, much like we are already doing, with one exception?it will be on our terms. In short, no matter how trade negotiations go with the U.S., Texas will be just fine.

Support Texas Independence. Join the LINK ]Texas Nationalist Movement.

quote:

---

Join the Texas Nationalist Movement.

---

They want me to pay to admit to sedition? I'm all for seceding, but I'm spending my money on ammo and dry goods.

Man this is some fantasy here. If the US has a sanctions regime placed on Texas, no foreign country will support you.

quote:

---

Man this is some fantasy here. If the US has a sanctions regime placed on Texas, no foreign country will support you.

---

How difficult will it be for Texas to transition from a state in the union to an independent nation?

Independence is not a single act embodied in a referendum. Independence is a state of being. The referendum is the first step in the process, an expression of political will that kicks off the process of becoming independent. It is, however, an important step. Such an expression of political will must be respected. It demands action. However, that action must be balanced with care and caution as Texas enters the next phase?negotiation and transition.

There should be one single aim for relations with the United States in the immediate aftermath of TEXIT?minimizing disruption. While those opposed to TEXIT would love to think that disruption cannot be avoided or even mitigated as Texas leaves the Union, they are dead wrong. In fact, the tools necessary to effect a speedy, efficient, and minimally disruptive TEXIT are already at our disposal. Before discussing what specific measures could or should be taken after a referendum, it’s important to take stock of these tools and examine how 195 independent, self-governing nation-states already operate, especially regarding one another.

Modern, self-governing, Western-style nation-states typically use four mechanisms to conduct the business of state. Fundamental issues of governance are addressed in a constitution that, if it’s already in existence and contains a method to do so, can be changed through amendments. In the case of Texas, the existing State constitution is already in the form of a republic with a form that is virtually identical to that of an independent nation-state.

Nations, at least those that are republics, have legislative bodies that makes laws under the authorization of the aforementioned constitution. The executive branch of the government can execute administrative actions that affect the operations of its various departments and agencies and set the rules for how the laws are executed. The final set of tools in the arsenal are international agreements that come in either the form of bilateral agreements between two countries or standing multilateral agreements to which more than two countries have signed on.

These tools of statecraft are important to understanding the mechanisms that can be used to transition from being a member State of the United States to an independent nation-state. However, one other component is helpful in understanding how a transition will play out. There is a major shift in the mindset that follows a referendum outcome in favor of TEXIT. From the moment the vote is certified, Texas and the United States become, for all intents and purposes, foreign to one another. Texans must begin to view the United States and its government no differently than any other foreign government or supranational entity. Negotiating with the federal government becomes like negotiating with Mexico or the United Nations.

There are highly probable scenarios where the outcome of Texas leaving the Union is smooth with virtually no disruption. After all, it is in the best interests of both Texas and the United States to ensure that disruption is kept to a minimum while respecting the decision of Texans to govern themselves. Using existing legal mechanisms, federal policies and international norms and institutions that currently govern the relationship between the United States and other countries point to a smooth transition.

Will an independent Texas maintain embassies in other countries?

Texas will operate in the same manner as other independent, self-governing nations. We will have our own ambassadors, embassies, trade missions, and consulates around the world.

Support Texas Independence. Join the LINK ]Texas Nationalist Movement.

How will an independent Texas defend itself?

Texas has always shown a belief in a strong national defense, with a focus on threats to the safety and security of Texans at home. An independent Texas has little in the way of conventional national security concerns. The threat of a combined land, air, and sea invasion is next to non-existent. But threats do still exist. There is the threat of the cartels and violence spilling over our border with Mexico as well as the threat of international terrorists using that same border to execute attacks on civilian targets within Texas. In addition, there are always threats that could upset international stability. While these are often met with the combined military might of the western world, an independent Texas would be ready and willing to do its part.

The bulk of Texas national defense will be concentrated on three key areas: strengthening the borders against national security risks, defense against attack from international state actors, and supporting military actions of allies that are congruent with our strategic objectives.

Using the NATO target average of 2 percent of GDP for military and defense spending would provide approximately $32.78 billion annually, making Texas 11th in the world in defense spending. Funding at this level would cover the costs of recruiting, training, equipping, and maintaining an active duty enlistment in excess of 125,000 troops. This would be in line with the number of Texans currently serving in the United States military in all branches. In addition, it would provide a level of funding to, over time, increase our inventory of military vehicles including naval vessels, fighters and support aircraft, and armored vehicles. Building on the current military infrastructure in the Texas Military Department (TMD), Texas will grow the components of the TMD into a world-class military force capable of addressing any threat to the safety and security of Texas posed by any who would do us harm.

What will happen to all of the U.S. military bases after TEXIT?

Texas is currently home to 15 military installations with an economic impact of around $150 billion. However, the military installations account for only $14 billion in federal payroll spending in Texas. In addition, there are currently more than 118,000 Texans on active duty status across all branches of the military. These are not insignificant figures.

However, it is important not to conflate the issues of military presence and political union. The United States maintains nearly 800 military bases in more than 70 countries and territories abroad. No one would argue that those 70 countries are in a political union with the United States due to the presence of a U.S. military base, nor would anyone argue that they should be. The presence of these military bases on foreign soil is solely about shared defense concerns and security interests. It does not imply any further political connection.

After a TEXIT, Texas may not share a government with the rest of the United States, but we will still share defense and national security concerns. International military cooperation has been a cornerstone of U.S. defense policy since the Second World War and, while it has been suggested that there should be some reforms, the underlying policy is unlikely to change, especially close to home.

It is, therefore, highly probable that Texas would enter into a mutual defense pact with the United States that includes joint use and operation of existing military bases and facilities in Texas or their full transfer to the Texas Military Department. As a part of any mutual defense pact, Texas will likely have to pledge to spend a set percentage of its GDP on national defense, much like the reforms proposed for NATO. In return, the United States should guarantee the availability of military arms and equipment for tariff-free purchase by manufacturers in the United States and vice versa. Texas should stipulate that the mutual defense pact should only extend to commonly agreed defense concerns.

Any mutual defense pact of this nature could set a transition period where things essentially stay as they are now, operating under a joint command until such time as the already established Texas Military Forces are at full readiness.

What will happen to Texans serving in the United States military after TEXIT?

There are already federal policies in place that governs non-citizens in the military. Every year, more than 8,000 non-citizens enlist in the United States armed forces. In addition, because of existing international treaties, citizens of the Federated States of Micronesia, the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and Palau are allowed to enlist and regularly do so, as are Canadian citizens of Native American heritage. It is reasonable to assume that the United States military would want to extend this existing policy to cover the 118,000 Texans who currently serve, and likely any other Texans who would want to in the future. While this option may be extended to Texas, it’s important to note that many, if not all, Texans currently serving in the military will want to shift their enlistment to the Texas Military Forces as early as possible.

Support Texas Independence. Join the LINK ]Texas Nationalist Movement.

Sounds dumber than what southerners thought at the outset of the Civil War. JFC, you people live in a sophomoric, cosplay fan fic world.

quote:

---

There should be one single aim for relations with the United States in the immediate aftermath of TEXIT?minimizing disruption.

---

Again, you guys are so painfully naïve I don't know how to talk to you. There is every incentive in the world for the US to maximize disruption, to prevent any breakaway state from achieving independence. You guys are talking about matters of political economy, yet seem to have no understanding of it.

quote:

---

TEXIT isn’t an act, it’s a process. And it will take time.

---

First, you’ll get less than zero support. Secondly, the money, the companies (all energy) would be against this. It would crush the economy. So you’re not getting them and your probably not getting half the reps. The only people that are for something like this are people who have no I idea how the TX economy works.

quote:

---

May I ask you ... why are you against Texas secession?

---

I'm not against anything, but I think you guys are being extremely naïve about the externalities. Study geopolitics for a while and see why some of the things you are suggesting would cause a massive security spiral.

FWIW, I would support something like Welsh and Scottish independence because they have a functionally different security situation. Or rather, I would think Welsh and Scottish independence has a higher likelihood of success than other independence movements.

Texan independence is going to have massive ramifications that your website isn't considering. I'm not suggesting it is impossible, I'm suggesting there is a utopian strain of thought that doesn't reflect the reality of a political situation. In the calculus between the US and any breakaway state, you have to side with the US winning long-term, unless something insane happens.