Green lands ‘or’ green backs / He who sells what isn’t his’n …

A couple of days ago, there was this honour awarded to Denmark by not visiting, by youknowwho.
For the reason you’re all aware of, officially [i.e., per tweet] so declared.

1. As was in the news, too, the true reasons for wanting to ‘buy Greenland’ were in the ground. ‘Strategic’ interests indeed, for once, not [only !!] qua global-geographical location as such;
2. Any sale would actually have ‘helped’ the climate, but then, in the extreme negative;
3. What would it cost? In $ that may not be worth their exchange rate, in € [see below under F] or in DKK ..? Either way, it would create a currency demand-followed-by-a-supply shock. And the price might be [Trump-tower-ft²-price]x[Greenland’s total ft²] = … the 2^nd part is 2.331555e+13
4. The idea one just buys colonies with their inhabitants is beyond idiocy;
5. Inhabitants would either be slaves by being sold with the land, or forced into exile (into the same country i.e. Denmark) which also is slavery. Last time I looked, that is unconstitutional on both the seller and the buyer side but praxis mat differ (not as much on the seller side, one sees);
6. As Greenland is an autonomous country in the Kingdom of Denmark and the latter is part of the EU, one would expect the EU to have a say in the spin-off of its territory, no? Is there such a thing as a Section 50subB or so regarding such outlier bit of the EU itself? Would want to know since other countries have similar outliers. He who sells what isn’t his own, buys it back or goes to prison. But that’s an old short-seller trade law of stock exchanges, not that the erstwhile prospective buyer would know anything about this since I wrote ‘law’;
7. for Greenland would better fit, geographically, culturally, strategically, climate-wise, etc.etc.etc. with Canada. With CETA in place, we’d have even some more interesting free trade route/logistics options… Which leads me to consider a referendum:
   1. Remain with the Kingdom;
   2. Be independent;
   3. Join Canada;
   4. Jump commonwealths from Kingdom to Queen;
   5. Be sold to the US with the proceeds going to Denmark for centuries of loyal subsidies;
   6. The same, but with proceeds going to the populace. See C., at some 57.000 census that would be something in the vicinity of 362M per head. Hmmm…;

   The overwhelming vote would go to 2., with 1. close by; there will be someone [you know who we mean, Ole!] who for a minute would consider 5. but he would be clubbed before the vote already.

8. Also, if sold, what about GDPR et al ..?
9. will stop now.

[Where Greenland has a lot of ice, still, and Iceland has a lot of green, this is Lakefield CND]

Let’s Finnish with something from 1904: