It belongs to the people who live there. While you may think places like Point Roberts should be forcibly moved to Canada, or Ceuta should be forcibly moved to Morocco, I'm of the opinion of self determination, as is the global view based on the United Nations, who recognizes self-determination as the right of all peoples to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development

That's the same, whether it's Gibraltar, Scotland, Cornwall, the Canary Islands, Ceuta, Taiwan, Falklands, Cyprus, Texas, Point Roberts, Crimea, Canada, Greenland, etc etc.

We can argue about the thresholds needed, the length of time of residence ("squatters rights" etc), the minimum size of a given area, but the principal remains.

▲

Buxato an hour ago | parent | next [-]

So if we conquer a place and change the people there, it's the new people who decides? or how we proceed?

▲

unkeen 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

If it belongs to the people who live there, why does Britain have any say in their matters?

▲

manarth 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Because the people who live there overwhelmingly (98%–99%) vote in favour of remaining British.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_Gibraltar_sovereignty_ref...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2002_Gibraltar_sovereignty_ref...

▲

maccard 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Gibraltar have had two referendums on whether they want to be a part of Spain or the UK, and they have voted with an absolutely insane majority to choose to be part of the UK in both cases. This isn't like Brexit, or Scotland's IndyRef - there was a 96% turnout and a 99% vote in favour of the UK in 1967, and an 88% turnout with a 99% vote in favour again in 2002.

▲

rmunn 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

Why does Britain have any say in the people who live in, say, Liverpool? Because that's historically been British territory. So what's the difference? Only real difference I can see is length of history (a few hundred years vs. nearly a thousand years). But as far as I'm concerned, a few hundred years vs. nearly a thousand years doesn't make much difference. I'd argue that any territory that has belonged to country X for longer than all of its inhabitants have been alive has a pretty fair claim to be historical territory of country X, and should continue being part of country X unless there's a very good reason otherwise. (Such as a valid treaty, a clear referendum, and so on).

It gets all complicated and messy when war is involved, of course. I'm talking about peaceful transfers of ownership here.

	▲	unkeen 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		So you’re suggesting amnesia and ignoring the fact that Gibraltar wasn’t a blank spot on the map before it was annexed by the British. I think that’s a very one-sided view.