4 ms·

Yes, although practicality of identifying who that means might mean that we do something slightly short of that - we could grant broader rights of abode and to

Yes, although practicality of identifying who that means might mean that we do something slightly short of that - we could grant broader rights of abode and to work in the UK to British National (Overseas) passport holders (which anyone resident in HK prior to 1997 was eligible for and very large numbers registered for) in the same way we did in the early 2000s for what are now called British Overseas Territories Citizens (citizens of the remaining UK colonies).

pm90 7y ago
What would be the problem with granting permissive citizenship, or a path to citizenship to citizens of HK in the UK? Is the fear one of demographic change? It seems somewhat perplexing to me why the UK would not want to accept these folks who are fluent in English, highly educated, familiar with British civic principles (which are similar to the HK Government) and would likely provide a nice boost to the UK economy as well.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  It would probably have been a huge boost to the economy - HK was doing far better than UK plc at the time, and had been for years. Personally (as a Brit old enough to remember the creation of BNO status in the mid 80s) I see it as something to be deeply ashamed of nationally. We should have let far more get residency than we did. The fears were a) petty racism (partly driven by the Daily Fail and Sun, partly within the Tory party - Tebbit and others) and b) unemployment. Which has always struck me as absurd - even at the time when I was more Tory sympathetic politically - given how popular and well integrated the Chinese community has always been in the UK. Tebbit has always been an Enoch Powell apologist so no surprise on his views. The Thatcher Tory government was presiding over near 12% unemployment in the UK and in 84 it was round about the peak post-war rate. They'd been elected on a smallish majority in 79 with the major advertising campaign being "Labour isn't working" [1] criticising the 6% unemployed. A rate so low that we've basically never returned to that level in the decades since, other than a brief spell prior to 08 banking crisis, but I digress. At the time of the Hong Kong declaration they'd just been re-elected on a landslide off the back of the Falklands victory, so they could have let far more in if the political will within the party were there. The Tories clearly had no problem with high unemployment - it was their policies caused it. Governments lately seem to believe or act as though it is nothing whatsoever to do with them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Isn't_Working https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Isn't_Working
  - tomatocracy 7y ago
    That's all very true - the context in the early 1980s was that the UK government had only changed UK citizenship law to fully exclude the remaining colonies from citizenship in 1981 (which became effective in 1983); Enoch Powell was still an MP (albeit for the UUP not the Conservatives) and Commonwealth/colonial immigration in general was still seen by a large number of people as a problem, often for racist reasons. But I don't think that's the whole story. Once the UK had conceded that it would hand over Hong Kong, it was determined to use it in a positive way - hoping that China would see the success of Hong Kong and try to emulate it, by liberalising its economy, rather than moving Hong Kong towards the Chinese system. Deng Xiaoping was relatively newly in power and economic liberalisation in China was no longer unthinkable. In the context of the cold war, encouraging this was an important strategic imperative which it's easy to forget now. There were very real (and arguably very justified) fears that granting UK citizenship automatically would have led to a huge brain drain effect which could have harmed Hong Kong and frustrated this objective. Of course, by the 1990s the Cold War was over and none of this was relevant any more. The decision to only offer 50,000 people full UK citizenship then was indeed a huge mistake and something we should be ashamed of - unfortunately it didn't get wide publicity in the UK at the time the decision was made and I think people are still very unaware of it.
    - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
      All true. There seemed to be a distinct hierarchy to racism back then. That so many were in the NHS, running takeaways or corner shops undoubtedly helped soften the popular view for some nationalities. You're right there was a hope, even expectation that China would eventually move somewhat into step with Hong Kong, as at the time it was so far ahead economically. I've always wondered how much of that was the public line rather than actual assessment within the Foreign Office or government. It seemed a little wishful when Communism still looked secure - before the wall fell, Eastern bloc nations were dropping like flies, and there were pro-democracy demos across China - which of course culminated in Tiananmen. You're also right it mainly disappeared from view after the 97 handover ceremony, which is to be regretted.

pm90 7y ago

What would be the problem with granting permissive citizenship, or a path to citizenship to citizens of HK in the UK? Is the fear one of demographic change? It seems somewhat perplexing to me why the UK would not want to accept these folks who are fluent in English, highly educated, familiar with British civic principles (which are similar to the HK Government) and would likely provide a nice boost to the UK economy as well.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
It would probably have been a huge boost to the economy - HK was doing far better than UK plc at the time, and had been for years. Personally (as a Brit old enough to remember the creation of BNO status in the mid 80s) I see it as something to be deeply ashamed of nationally. We should have let far more get residency than we did. The fears were a) petty racism (partly driven by the Daily Fail and Sun, partly within the Tory party - Tebbit and others) and b) unemployment. Which has always struck me as absurd - even at the time when I was more Tory sympathetic politically - given how popular and well integrated the Chinese community has always been in the UK. Tebbit has always been an Enoch Powell apologist so no surprise on his views. The Thatcher Tory government was presiding over near 12% unemployment in the UK and in 84 it was round about the peak post-war rate. They'd been elected on a smallish majority in 79 with the major advertising campaign being "Labour isn't working" [1] criticising the 6% unemployed. A rate so low that we've basically never returned to that level in the decades since, other than a brief spell prior to 08 banking crisis, but I digress. At the time of the Hong Kong declaration they'd just been re-elected on a landslide off the back of the Falklands victory, so they could have let far more in if the political will within the party were there. The Tories clearly had no problem with high unemployment - it was their policies caused it. Governments lately seem to believe or act as though it is nothing whatsoever to do with them. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Isn't_Working https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labour_Isn't_Working
- tomatocracy 7y ago
  That's all very true - the context in the early 1980s was that the UK government had only changed UK citizenship law to fully exclude the remaining colonies from citizenship in 1981 (which became effective in 1983); Enoch Powell was still an MP (albeit for the UUP not the Conservatives) and Commonwealth/colonial immigration in general was still seen by a large number of people as a problem, often for racist reasons. But I don't think that's the whole story. Once the UK had conceded that it would hand over Hong Kong, it was determined to use it in a positive way - hoping that China would see the success of Hong Kong and try to emulate it, by liberalising its economy, rather than moving Hong Kong towards the Chinese system. Deng Xiaoping was relatively newly in power and economic liberalisation in China was no longer unthinkable. In the context of the cold war, encouraging this was an important strategic imperative which it's easy to forget now. There were very real (and arguably very justified) fears that granting UK citizenship automatically would have led to a huge brain drain effect which could have harmed Hong Kong and frustrated this objective. Of course, by the 1990s the Cold War was over and none of this was relevant any more. The decision to only offer 50,000 people full UK citizenship then was indeed a huge mistake and something we should be ashamed of - unfortunately it didn't get wide publicity in the UK at the time the decision was made and I think people are still very unaware of it.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    All true. There seemed to be a distinct hierarchy to racism back then. That so many were in the NHS, running takeaways or corner shops undoubtedly helped soften the popular view for some nationalities. You're right there was a hope, even expectation that China would eventually move somewhat into step with Hong Kong, as at the time it was so far ahead economically. I've always wondered how much of that was the public line rather than actual assessment within the Foreign Office or government. It seemed a little wishful when Communism still looked secure - before the wall fell, Eastern bloc nations were dropping like flies, and there were pro-democracy demos across China - which of course culminated in Tiananmen. You're also right it mainly disappeared from view after the 97 handover ceremony, which is to be regretted.