I don’t know why they make an issue about the crossing procedure. But there is a legitimate issue about the physical location of the border. Apparently when British ownership was negotiated, a neutral zone was established between the British and Spanish owned areas. But the British began edging into this neutral zone as the decades passed. And not in an insignificant way either - Gibraltar’s airport is the middle of what was once the neutral zone. So Spain took a more active stance on enforcing the border in order to dissuade British encroachment.
Wait, Calais ? How is Calais an enclave of anything or anyone ? Or are you talking about the Middle Ages ?
I know they lie about it all the time (signs all around the place say “Pas-de-Calais”, when there so is one !), but it’s a French city sitting squarely on French soil, and has been so from the 16th century onwards - give or take a brief Spanish invasion and the occasional German occupation.
I hear this argument a lot, but while the obvious advantages of a democratic choice seem fairly clear, it does seem to me that this effectively opens the backdoor to a sort of large-scale squatting. If we were talking about a house with contested ownership, the people living in that house still wouldn’t get a say in who owned it no matter how long they had lived there. And if all that’s needed is a combination of like-minded people and time, wouldn’t an approach of this nature leave any country capable of taking any particular small enough region it wanted, via immigration and time?
Like, say, North America? Or Argentina? 
Exactly.
Q: Why are French streets lined with trees?
A: So German troops can march in the shade.
Yes, I was talking about Calais’ history as an enclave not its current status. Sorry if you were confused. As long as you’re keeping score the situations at West Berlin, Heligoland, and Trieste have also been resolved.
And the reason for the cheap shot is…
Sure, if there is any evidence that is going on we should address those situations based on the particulars. The Faklands however has been inhabited by Brits since before Argentina had independence from Spain (and has never been really held by an independent Argentina); and honestly was never really permanently occupied by anyone else. Gibraltar hasn’t been associated with the Spanish crown since the Habsburgs still sat on the Spanish throne. So this is not one of those potential problems you’re positing.
I agree there is some sense behind what you’re saying. But I also feel there’s a limit on how far you can extend the principle. Gibraltar has been a British possession for three hundred years. At some point, you have to feel that any Spanish claim based on historical ownership has worn out and the Gibraltarians are now the “natural” owners. At this point, Spain taking over Gibraltar would be an act of imperialism not the reversal of one.
Well, yes, but those three were WW2 fallout (Heligoland might have been disputed earlier, I’m not sure) so I was indeed a bit confused to see much more ancient history that had been “solved” by governments that have very little to do with modern ones, and even predate the concept of a nation-state, thrown in the mix :). I wondered if there was some post-war kerfluffle I wasn’t familiar with.
If we switch it from an Argentinian claim to a Spanish one, I just don’t agree that longevity of effective ownership is reasonable as a standard for actual ownership. I mean, if nothing else, if we go that route we actually need to draw a line somewhere in terms of occupation length before it becomes ownership. And if we do that, then aren’t any potential occupiers just going to stall until 100 years or whatever length until ownership is an accepted fact?
Would a holders keepers principle extend to personal possessions as well as national ones?
Uh… the quoted previous reference to German occupation?
Humor. It is a difficult concept.
Not really. Just needs to be funny.
De gustibus.
I don’t know what you’re talking about, who is saying longevity is the only metric here? Longevity is one part of the puzzle in that the onus for “fixing some wrong” diminishes when we’re talking about changing something that has been the status quo for centuries. This isn’t like the Muslims who were pushed out of their homes in 1948, some of them are still alive. Quite a great number of their children and grand children are still alive, and they still only marginally have a place to stay. So there has always been some level of acceptance that their lot really sucks, and if there was a way to fix it without destroying Israel most people would probably favor it.
But when something has persisted for centuries, and it’s effectively hurting no one, it is much less of an onus.
On the issue of Gibraltar, one of the key reasons it is unambiguously British is the Spanish gave it to the British. The Spanish signed a peace treaty ceding control of Gibraltar to the British. The Spanish monarch approved this treaty. If we’re suggesting the British give back Gibraltar then we’re in the territory of giving back Kaliningrad / Koenigsberg to the Germans now, because we’re saying we just don’t like a perfectly valid peace treaty, accepted by all at the time, and want it amended for…what reason again? The Spanish ceded Gibraltar to the British because they wanted Philip to be recognized on the Spanish throne (even with renunciation it was still questionable as to how easily anyone in Europe would accept the grandson of the King of France as the King of a second European Great Power), they were horse trading and in a poor strategic position given the British had fared well against the Spanish in the war. When you agree to give up land in a negotiated peace I see no real moral or legal claim that later on you should get it back “just because I really want it.”
For what reason? Because the land used to be Spanish? Well, so did most of the Western Hemisphere.
A key issue with Gibraltar is all parties agreed on it being British when the war that decided its possession was ended by a formal peace treaty. That makes your fears of “what if someone just sailed in and squatted on some small piece of land covertly for a really long time” irrelevant. Especially since Gibraltar, while certainly small, is not a place one would squat covertly. It is in an incredibly important strategic location, it was when it was taken over by the British and it still is today. It’s never been a secret the British had possession of it.
A), I didn’t claim anyone said that it was the* only metric here, but that I disagreed with it as a standard, not the* standard. And B), I quoted Little Nemo, in the very post you’re replying to, explicitly saying that longevity of inhabitancy was a factor in assigning ownership.
As to the rest of your post, i’m merely pointing out that an appeal to democracy, alone, as an argument, doesn’t really seem to work to me. Your original post claimed only the “let the people there decide” argument worked for the Falklands and Gibraltar and made no mention of the historical background and treaties you point out here. I have no issue with the historical basis for ownership as an argument - nor even disagreeing on ownership with you - merely pointing out that popular decision, the original and sole argument you used up to that point, seems problematic.
Are you aware that many Palestinians are Christian?
Heligoland: the true Story of German Bight and the Island That Britain Betrayed is a very readable and interesting book. I think the parallels with Gibralter and the Falklands lies in the fact that the citizens want remain British.
From what I’ve read, Britain was wanting to lose The Falklands in the seventies and the rather rash, nationalistic invasion by Argentina came as a godsend to Margaret Thatcher. who at the time was trailing by a long way in the polls. Could easily have gone the way of Heligoland.