Advisory referendums can lead to independence – pragmatic politics trumps legal niceties – this would have implications for Texas
“Sure, we can vote for Brexit, but the government would just ignore or, wouldn’t they? I mean, in a representative democracy the legislature is king, right?” It was 2014 – two years before a majority of the voters in Britain voted 52-48 to leave the European Union.
The man who asked the question was a Conservative member of the European Parliament who had campaigned for leaving the EU for a lifetime, and he was sceptical, not to say despondent.
“No”, I told him, “Parliament could not ignore the vote. Politics trumps law”
The vote to leave the European Union was advisory. Legally, that is constitutionally speaking, the Westminster Parliament could have given short shift to the will of the people, said that it was a narrow majority, and so on.
But in practical, politics that is not how the proverbial cookie crumbles. Most referendums on independence, secession, or whatever word you want to use, are advisory. Indeed, so are most referendums.
When Iceland voted to leave Denmark after a thousand years of union (the North Atlantic nation had been settled by the Vikings), the Icelandics did so by means of an advisory referendum. The Danes were none too happy about this, but the Folketing – the Danish parliament – nevertheless conceded the freedom to Iceland, and even smoothed the process by continuing cooperation on practical matters like training for dentists and other mundane matters.
When South Sudan voted in an advisory referendum to sever its ties with Sudan. The vote was affirmative. The Sudanese could have blocked it. They chose not to. The will of the people. In this case over 90 percent is not something you can argue with.
I was there at the time as part of The US State Department’s envoy team for Africa. I remember vividly discussions in Khartoum (the Sudanese capital) where representatives of the regime told me, “We live in the real world. If that’s what they want it is futile to resist”.
Now if that is the position of government that was at best autocratic, it says something about the norms of the international community as regards independence.
Now, you might ask, what if the vote is close? After all, when Iceland voted for independence in 1944, the proposition was supported by over 95 percent of the population – just like in the case of South Sudan.
In practice, that doesn’t make a difference. Malta voted to become independent from the United Kingdom in 1964 the vote was close. The UK legislature could have ignored it. They did not. Not a single member voted against Maltese independence.
Likewise, the Serbian parliament did not block Montenegro from becoming an independent state even though the majority for independence was barely above the threshold of 55 percent.
So, if a measure were to appear on a ballot in Texas, and if a majority were to vote for Texit, this would be more than symbolic. It would be an advisory vote, yes, but like the cases just cited, it would not be a thing that the present parent country could ignore. History is not always a guide to the future, but all the advisory referendums carried out in accordance with the rule-of-law have so far resulted in independence
Independence is not just winning the endorsement of the people. The difficult process comes after, when the two parties must negotiate the divorce settlement, who get what and how.
The referendum is not the end of the process. It is the beginning. But history show that winning it is a point of no return.
Matt Qvortrup, DPhil (Oxon) is Professor of Political Science at Coventry University and author of the book I Want to Break Free: A Practical Guide to Making a New Country https://manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk/9781526166050/
Hello, I am new to Texas and TEXIT. I have read Daniel Miler’s book “TEXIT”. His explainations of a peaceful transition seem plausable. I do have a few concerns which may have already been addressed so I hope there are resourses that can answer some of these questions.
In today’s political climate I am increasingly concerned of a potential non-peaceful transition to independence. Our Federal Government seems to have gone rogue and has been weaponizing along with some agencies like the DoD, DoJ, HHS, CIA, etc… It seems to me there is the possibility a separation may not be as peacful as we may think especially when considerinig all the current unfunded liabilities, ie, SS, MCR, and Debt. What would happen if the Federal Government were to saddle Texas with all this dept alone? The financial transition could also be a sticky one when considering CBDC’s. The ability to weaponize the weather is one of their tricks to deploy. What other curve balls might they use against us?
Peae direct me to some articles that may address some of these concerns.
Thank you for everything you are doing for TEXIT.