Re: OT: Strange future for down-under?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm, it was a joke. It wasn't meant to be a real comment.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Statehood would be up to them, but independance would be decided here in Washington. They will get it, even if they don't want it.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Actually, the plebescite in 1967 had three options: remain a Commonwealth, become a State, or become an independent nation.

Independence got about 1% of the vote.

(Hm. Looks like there was another vote in 1991 where commonwealth status won again, but by a smaller margin than in the previous one. Statehood was 2nd place.)

So that's at least two instances where the choice was put to a vote.

Re: OT: Strange future for down-under?
 

I think what Thermo is trying to say is of course Puerto Rico has a choice in whether they go to the US and say "We wan't to be independant." But if the US comes to Puerto Rico and says, "You are now independant." they don't get a choice. You can't unilateraly remain a commonwealth of the US (or whatever the relationship is) if the US terminates it from their end.

Geoschmo

Re: OT: Strange future for down-under?
 

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Umm, it was a joke. It wasn't meant to be a real comment.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Statehood would be up to them, but independance would be decided here in Washington. They will get it, even if they don't want it.