3 ms·
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 fro
by 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 agoAll 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.