3 ms·

The consequence of continuing would have been far worse than abandoning. The fact remains that they were moving to put in place democratic reforms. Prior to the

The consequence of continuing would have been far worse than abandoning. The fact remains that they were moving to put in place democratic reforms. Prior to the Chinese revolution HK was an economic backwater - most of its population being related to the transhipment port and military presence. Kowloon and New Territories were only added as buffer zone for the port. Growth was nearly all post Chinese revolution. In the post-war decolonisation period GB had a policy of no independence before majority rule. They were putting in place democratic reforms elsewhere, and ensuring minority rule (ie South Africa) didn't continue after independence.

dragonsh 7y ago
> The consequence of continuing would have been far worse than abandoning. The fact remains that they were moving to put in place democratic reforms. Prior to the Chinese revolution HK was an economic backwater - most of its population being related to the transhipment port and military presence. Kowloon and New Territories were only added as buffer zone for the port. Growth was nearly all post Chinese revolution. The consequences of continuing will be worse for Britain as they will not be able to milk revenue or profits from Hong Kong. By extending it until 1997 they were able to milk Hong Kong, until the very day when it was about to become a liability and lead to economic expense. All the wealth of Hong Kong in those days from 1980's to 1997 was due to growth of China. Hong Kong has never paid any revenue or money to China, but on the contrary Britain extracted money from Hong Kong since they set foot and continued it for 150 years. On top of it in 1997 moved all the profits to London when they left. These all facts are part of Hong Kong history. Probably Britain should pay reparations to Hong Kong. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Except that is simply not true, and there's no evidence for it. British corporations that existed in the HK market may have extracted revenue, as might any corporation, of any nationality with their overseas operations. The Hang Seng is a major stock market in its own right, so the majority of money was staying as HK money. The British government, on the other hand, was not receiving billions into the treasury as a consequence of holding Hong Kong.

dragonsh 7y ago

> The consequence of continuing would have been far worse than abandoning. The fact remains that they were moving to put in place democratic reforms. Prior to the Chinese revolution HK was an economic backwater - most of its population being related to the transhipment port and military presence. Kowloon and New Territories were only added as buffer zone for the port. Growth was nearly all post Chinese revolution. The consequences of continuing will be worse for Britain as they will not be able to milk revenue or profits from Hong Kong. By extending it until 1997 they were able to milk Hong Kong, until the very day when it was about to become a liability and lead to economic expense. All the wealth of Hong Kong in those days from 1980's to 1997 was due to growth of China. Hong Kong has never paid any revenue or money to China, but on the contrary Britain extracted money from Hong Kong since they set foot and continued it for 150 years. On top of it in 1997 moved all the profits to London when they left. These all facts are part of Hong Kong history. Probably Britain should pay reparations to Hong Kong. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7CW7S0zxv4

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Except that is simply not true, and there's no evidence for it. British corporations that existed in the HK market may have extracted revenue, as might any corporation, of any nationality with their overseas operations. The Hang Seng is a major stock market in its own right, so the majority of money was staying as HK money. The British government, on the other hand, was not receiving billions into the treasury as a consequence of holding Hong Kong.