‘Calexit’: Californians want to exit the U.S. after Trump's win


**Californians want out

Californian legislative leaders released a statement on Trump’s startling victory, saying the state’s voters “overwhelmingly rejected politics fuelled by resentment, bigotry, and misogyny”.

“Today, we woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land, because yesterday Americans expressed their views on a pluralistic and democratic society that are clearly inconsistent with the values of the people of California,” the statement read.

“California was not a part of this nation when its history began, but we are clearly now the keeper of its future.”

The heavily Democratic state voted to legalise recreation marijuana, toughen gun control measures, extend an income tax on the wealthy, eased parole rules and overturned a law that restricted biingual education.

California also elected Attorney General Kamala Harris to the US Senate, making her the first black woman since Carol Moseley Braun in 1999.

Meanwhile, Californians called for #Calexit, which trended on Twitter, referring to Brexit and seceding from the US.

Venture capitalist Shervin Pishevar declared on Twitter he would fund a “legitimate campaign for Californa to become its own nation”.

Pishevar pointed out California had the sixth largest economy in the world. **


**Moments after Donald Trump won the presidential election, Californians took to Twitter to make clear they want to secede from the United States.

“Calexit” has been trending on social media — reminiscent of the Brexit movement to leave the European Union — and some protesters are planning to assemble on the capitol steps in Sacramento on Wednesday.

The group leading the gathering is “Yes California,” a campaign which aims to put a referendum on the 2018 ballot to exit the nation.

Although Hillary Clinton won California with 61% of the electoral votes, she came up short to secure the presidency, and Trump managed to obtain 279 votes from major swing states like Florida, Pennsylvania and North Carolina, according to the Associated Press.

“We woke up feeling like strangers in a foreign land, because yesterday Americans expressed their views on a pluralistic and democratic society that are clearly inconsistent with the values of the people of California,” two California legislators said in a joint statement about the election results.

Some Californians showed their disapproval by igniting trash cans on the streets of Oakland and others chanted “Not our president” around University of California’s Berkeley campus.

I fully support this movement and wish them much luck in their endeavors! Maybe someone will set up a GoFundMe campaign for them!


Well, technically, talking secession is talking treason.

If some state wanted out and the rest of the nation were OK with it, the Constitution would still have to be amended to create a path. Peaceful and legal succession would certainly require the formal consent of the other states.

In other words, California gained admission to the Union by free choice, done is done, and California is going nowhere.

The U.S. is a non-voluntary “supranational entity” within its own borders, as the American Civil War demonstrated.

Some Californian brats may well hoot and holler about “Calexit”, but they’ll never do it. Nor would they ever be allowed to do it.

With regard to Brexit, the EU is supposed to be a voluntary union. It either is or it isn’t. The British people have voted to leave. Now the question is whether somehow they’ll be prevented from doing it.

Wasn’t it the left poking fun at the right after all of the secession petitions appeared on the White House website following the 2012 election?

I’m not surprised. If Hillary had won, I was hoping Texas and all the red states would secede so I could move there (I’m currently in California).

We DO have 2 countries in one here. Hillary’s push for “unity” is really just a way of saying that everyone needs to think like she does, including the Catholic Church. And if you don’t then you’re one of the bad bad guys, and you’ll be persecuted or prosecuted. If that kind of thinking continues, then I could see secession happening.

Something I’ve noticed for the last half dozen elections is when they show the county by county red vs. blue maps, the country is almost entirely red. The big cities are blue, everything else is red (even in blue states). The needs of cities, vs. the needs of country dwellers are NOT always the same. For example, cities need lots of public transportation, whereas the rest of us need good roads. There’s a separate thread right now about the electoral college — this is the kind of thing it protects (on a larger scale). A balance of power so the city dwellers don’t vote stuff for themselves, and nothing for non-city dwellers.

I think we already know from 1860 that U.S. states do not have the right of secession. At least, not under the current Constitution.

In theory, an amendment can be enacted, but only then. Any attempt without that will meet enforcement action from the federal government. Something like that kinda happend in 1861. It didn’t work out very well for eleven states that made the attempt.

A group of people in a state, a century or more ago, decide to join a union. And this decision is perpetually binding on ALL people who happen to ever live in that state in the future, forever?!?! They have perpetually bound future generations to a government they can’t possibly fathom from their graves? How ridiculous. That flies contrary to the very foundational principle of this country.

Um, no.

So the Civil War was indeed the War of Northern Aggression where Federalist Troops trampled upon states’ sovereign rights?

You can’t have it both ways. Either secession is illegal at best and treason at worst, or the Confederacy was a legitimate country that the US invaded and conquered and Lincoln was indeed a tyrant.

I fully agree, on both points.

As a Californian who was and is very much against pretty much everything Trump stands for, I can say without hesitation that these calls for secession are at best dumb and pointless, and at worse shameful.

The legality of secession was settled in 1845 with blood, steel, and shot. By raising that ghost we’re disrespecting all those men and women and children that suffered through that trial; suffered for a cause much more worthy than crying because your candidate lost.

Additionally, we all made fun of Tejas and the Deep South when they blustered about it the last eight years. We shouldn’t be hypocritical about this, Californians.

I won’t go on about what people should do in response to this election because I’m sure most people here are elated for it. But seriously, my fellow Californians. Grow up.

No we don’t. And this will never work. Some people just have very loud bullhorns.

Why are there two threads on this? :confused:

Good riddance.

Californian legislative leaders released a statement on Trump’s startling victory, saying the state’s voters "overwhelmingly rejected politics fuelled by resentment, bigotry, and misogyny".

They did? Hillary Clinton brings her own brand of bigotry and certainly resentment. They’re so tied to identity politics they can’t see straight. She should win because she’s a woman, she lost because she’s a woman. Good grief.

That said, good, California can have it’s massive budget deficit, incredibly high taxes and pseudo-intellectuals.

Ain’t gonna happen.

I like this - some group protesting out in the middle of nowhere doesn’t like the results and suddenly they declare on their own that the state wants to leave the union?

Wow, I guess if we like the results next time, we will just reconnect!

…and you get your information from a British Blog site??? :shrug:

On your first point, I agree.

The Civil War definitively settled the question of secession from the American Union - which is to say: there is no unilateral right of States to secede from it and nor should there be when hundreds of thousands of Americans paid with their lives in a brutal civil war over that very issue.

As you say, the constitutional law of the U.S. does not seem to admit of secession, in contrast to European law which explicitly allows for this extraordinary process through the Article 50 clause of the Lisbon Treaty.

To that extent, any comparisons between the Californian and British situations are necessarily limited and a bit misleading. I do think it will fizzle out once the emotional fervour of this election and its fall-out pipes down. People are obviously still raw but that phase eventually peters out as normal life resumes.

As to your second point, the EU is not restraining Britain from seceding in any way, shape or form. It wants us to get on with the onerous task of leaving and deciding what kind of Brexit we want. The current wrangle in the high court and supreme court over the triggering of Article 50 is an internal constitutional matter within the UK, over the sovereignty of parliament. The problem is not the EU at all but the fact that a sizeable - and apparently growing - number of Brits don’t want to Leave now that the prospects for our future are looking increasingly bleak if we don’t retain full access to the Single Market.

In addition, the Brexit crisis has resulted in a deep and polarized split in the British populace that looks set to crystallize into a permanent - if highly regrettable - facet of our national life. The narrow referendum victory for the Leave side has only settled one matter: Britain will not remain a member of the EU as it has been hitherto since the early '70s. The manner of our leaving and the destination, so to speak - in terms of whether we wish to entirely cut ourselves off from the EU altogether, including the single market, with the concomitant impact being higher prices and job losses, or remain in the customs union like Norway while being outside the EU political/legal framework and its supranational government courtesy of some kind of EEA deal with Brussels that allows us to retain access to the single market for key industries.

Furthermore, while Article 50 will be triggered (unless Scotland is allowed to somehow block or delay it until we get the deal we desire), it is a reversible process - as its Scottish author made clear.

Pro-EU Britons are still convinced in the view that Britain is better off in the EU or at least as a member of the Single Market.That does not mean that we do not accept the narrow referendum victory for the Brexiteers - we absolutely do but we also accept that the UK can change its mind in the future regarding its relationship with our continental neighbour; whether to integrate further or not. This would only occur through the ballot box, i.e. by means of a Pro-EU party coming to power on a ticket of increased EU integration or a second referendum one day.

According to the latest statistical data:


**Brexit: Majority of UK now wants to stay in EU, poll finds

A majority of voters now want the UK to remain in the EU, a poll has suggested. **


**More Britons prioritise EU trade than immigration controls - poll

Britons who want the government to prioritise favourable trade deals with the European Union when negotiating Britain’s exit from the bloc outnumber those who think it should prioritise reducing immigration, a poll has found.

Britons voted by 52 to 48 percent in a June referendum to quit the 28-member bloc after a campaign in which those advocating a “leave” vote focused heavily on immigration and promised that ‘Brexit’ would make it easier to reduce it.

The government is expected to formally start two years of negotiations on the terms of Britain’s departure by the end of March. Its challenge is to secure as much access as possible to the EU’s single market while also restricting the freedom of movement from other EU countries that is one of the market’s main pillars.

In a poll of 2,000 people conducted online by ComRes on Oct. 12-13, 49 percent of respondents said the government should prioritise getting favourable trade deals, while 39 percent thought it should prioritise reducing immigration.

There is a stark age divide, with 48 percent of older people wanting immigration controls to be the priority, while only 25 percent of younger people felt that way, according to the poll for the Sunday Mirror and Independent on Sunday newspapers.

That reflects the results of the referendum itself, in which a much higher proportion of older than younger voters opted for Brexit.**

A lot of people are very unhappy with the delirious toll that Brexit is having - even before it has been officially triggered - and is set to have on our economy and standing in the world.

If folks consider through the ballot box at a later date that the Pro-EU side is right, what’s wrong with that?

It is up to the people through our parliamentary representatives.

Brexit is not a settled issue. It is the defining political split in modern day Britain and is likely to remain so for a very long time. Indeed, Brexit is a bit of a demographic time bomb - as the older generations due off, the overwhelming Europhile younger generations of the present will make up an ever larger segment of the voting population.

Related to what I said above:



**The paradox in the U.K. is that the Brexit camp is a motley crew that includes completely different economic interests and groups…

That is why the Brexit camp is unlikely to find a coherent coalition with coherent economic policies after Brexit formally takes place. Thus, the U.K. political system, traditionally divided between Labour and Tory parties, may over time realign between parties in favor of Europe, free trade and globalization and parties against the EU, free trade and globalization…**

Its gonna be the permanent divide in our politics, supplanting the old left and right in the future.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.