Lee from our recent livestream asked an excellent question that deserves a detailed answer: “Can you explain how US/Texas negotiations might look after a successful independence vote, particularly regarding intellectual and military property, and why this negotiation is necessary?”
The short answer: Yes, formal negotiations would be absolutely necessary, and international law provides clear frameworks for how they would work.
Why Negotiations Are Required
After a successful TEXIT referendum, Texas wouldn’t automatically become independent overnight. As Daniel Miller explains, winning the vote is an expression of political will that triggers the complex process of securing actual independence through what TNM calls the “Secure TEXIT” phase.
Without formal negotiations, you’d have chaos. Who owns what? Which patents remain valid? Who controls military installations? These questions must be answered through binding agreements, not unilateral declarations.
The Legal Framework
International law governing state succession provides the roadmap. The Vienna Convention on Succession of States establishes that when new nations emerge, property rights and obligations must be divided through negotiated agreements.
Three key principles guide these talks:
First, continuity of rights. Intellectual property rights remain valid independently of political changes due to international treaties like the Paris and Berne Conventions. A Texas patent doesn’t disappear because of independence.
Second, equitable division. State practice from Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and the Soviet Union shows that assets and liabilities get divided based on factors like population, economic contribution, and territorial connection.
Third, good faith negotiation. Both sides have obligations under international law to negotiate honestly toward workable solutions.
How Intellectual Property Would Be Handled
The good news: IP negotiations are actually straightforward compared to other succession issues. When the Soviet Union dissolved, existing patents and copyrights continued under international conventions.
For Texas, this means:
- Patents filed by Texans would remain valid in both Texas and the US. International IP treaties protect these rights regardless of political boundaries.
- Federal research conducted at Texas universities would require specific agreements about ownership and licensing. The Yugoslav succession agreement created detailed frameworks for dividing such assets.
- Trade secrets and classified technology would need careful handling, likely through continuing security agreements similar to those between NATO allies.
Military Property Negotiations
This gets more complex. Military bases, equipment, and personnel represent significant federal investment on Texas soil.
Historical precedent suggests several approaches: When Czechoslovakia split, military assets were divided roughly 2:1 between the Czech Republic and Slovakia based on population and economic size.
Texas would likely negotiate to:
Purchase existing military installations at fair market value, similar to how Yugoslavia’s successors handled federal property.
Establish transition periods for personnel who want to remain in US service versus join Texas forces.
Create agreements for shared defense cooperation, particularly regarding border security and intelligence sharing.
The Treaty Mechanism
All of this would be formalized through what’s called a “devolution agreement” – essentially a comprehensive treaty between the United States and Texas covering the separation terms.
This treaty would address:
- Property division – Who gets what federal assets, from courthouses to research facilities.
- Debt allocation – Texas’s share of federal debt, offset by its share of federal assets.
- Transition procedures – Timeline for transferring authority and establishing new institutions.
- Ongoing relationships – Trade agreements, defense cooperation, and dispute resolution mechanisms.
The Vienna Convention framework requires such agreements to be negotiated in good faith, with both parties working toward equitable solutions.
Why This Process Benefits Texas
Some might ask: why negotiate at all? Why not just declare independence and sort it out later?
Because negotiated separation protects Texas interests. International law scholars note that bilateral agreements prevent unilateral confiscation and provide legal certainty for businesses, investors, and citizens.
A negotiated TEXIT means Texas patents remain protected globally, military assets transfer cleanly, and international recognition comes faster. Recent state practice shows that orderly succession through agreement leads to better outcomes than unilateral declarations.
The Bottom Line
Post-referendum negotiations aren’t an obstacle to independence – they’re the mechanism that makes independence work. International law provides tested frameworks, historical precedents show what’s possible, and Texas’s economic strength gives us significant leverage in these talks.
The question isn’t whether negotiations would happen, but how quickly we can get them started after Texans vote for their freedom.
This is exactly the kind of detailed planning TNM provides through our blueprint seminars and policy research. Independence isn’t just about the vote – it’s about having a comprehensive plan for what comes next.
