[InsomniacL]

215 years of British sovereignty?

The United States of America has had sovereignty of itself for 248 years, should the USA give up it's sovereignty in North America or do you draw the line between somewhere between 215 and 248?

At what point do you say, it is what it is?

[netc]

215 years of sovereignty Or 215 years of colonialism? Are the displaced people able to vote for UK parliamentary elections? Are they UK citizen?

[InsomniacL]

"People with roots in the Chagos Islands have criticised what they called their "exclusion" from negotiations leading to the UK government's deal to give up its sovereignty of the region."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy78ejg71exo

[s_dev]

>At what point do you say, it is what it is?

When you've lost the argument.

[berdario]

The obvious difference, is that you're comparing sovereignty over a nation/state's mainland, vs sovereignty over a separate colony, thousands of km away from the mainland (and even used only for military purposes, apparently)

[InsomniacL]

Hawaii then, 3,200 km away from the US mainland, home to one of the largest US navel bases and only part of the US for the last 126 years when they annexed it?

[berdario]

I'm not aware of nations in nearby islands/archipelago who are claiming the territory of Hawaii, so that's one difference.

But for sure, the locals would've appreciated it if the US didn't colonise Hawaii

https://x.com/SilverSpookGuy/status/1836132280806576289