3 ms·

As somebody from the UK I have been watching the situation in Hong Kong with great sadness. China have clearly broken the contract by which Hong Kong was given

by bArray 6y ago

As somebody from the UK I have been watching the situation in Hong Kong with great sadness. China have clearly broken the contract by which Hong Kong was given back and I would support my government if they decided to take action in order to protect the freedoms of Hong Kong citizens. That said, I don't believe the solution here is to move every Hong Kong citizen en mass to the UK. Regardless, there would be many trapped there under the Chinese regime.

blackrock 6y ago
Why do people of the U.K. continue to think that their opinion matters anymore, in regards to Hong Kong? All British government administration of Hong Kong, terminated at the moment of the handover in 1997. The Chinese honorably held up their end of the agreement, of their lease of Hong Kong to the British. They could have invaded at any time, but they didn’t. And the agreement was actually made by the Qing Dynasty, so the new China government at the time, could have rendered that agreement, null and void. But they didn’t. And let’s be honest here, when the British signed the 99-year lease, they never really expected to leave Hong Kong. They were just toying with the Chinese, by signing the lease with the Qing government. Little did they know at the time, that their exploitative empire would crumble in less than 50 years. If the people of the U.K. truly do support the people of Hong Kong, like you say, then they should take another referendum vote, on whether they want the Hong Kong people to move to Britain, and become British citizens. This is how you can support them.
- hnarn 6y ago
  > Why do people of the U.K. continue to think that their opinion matters anymore, in regards to Hong Kong? > All British government administration of Hong Kong, terminated at the moment of the handover in 1997. You answer your own question. The handover wasn't, but is a legally binding agreement with the United Kingdom, where among other things the "One country, two systems" principle was agreed to be in effect until 2047. > And let’s be honest here, when the British signed the 99-year lease, they never really expected to leave Hong Kong. The 99-year lease was only in regards to the New Territories. The Treaty of Nanking stipulates that HK Island was ceded "in perpetuity" to the UK. There's also the 1860 Convention of Peking. The PRC did not "recognize" this during negotiations, but as we can all see it seems par for the course for the PRC to simply "recognize" whatever parts they agree with at the time. If one is to draw the purely legal argument here, at least be consistent.
  - billfruit 6y ago
    I think New Territories is the lions share of the geographical area of modern HK. If UK had not transferred the other smaller areas in 1997, it would be the UK that would be in trouble, holding on to a small untenable piece of territory (Since the territories not under the 99 year lease are dependent upon the New Territories for many essential matters.)
    - hnarn 6y ago
      Being the lions’ share geographically means nothing out of context. HK Island is the urban and financial center of Hong Kong, so saying that it would never have survived with NT ceded to the PRC is like saying Manhattan and Brooklyn would never have survived being ceded to the UK because they didn’t hold New Jersey. Sure, it’s impractical to have a hostile mainland neighbor but if the place you’re occupying is one of the worlds largest harbors with all that entails, and you have the military capacity and will to defend it, it’s far from “untenable”. The main reason HK was ceded at all was because of the total decline of the British Empire, it’s not much more complicated than that.
      - billfruit 6y ago
        I think there was logistical issues with power plants and water treatment, and such vital infrastructure being largely in the New Territories, is what I remember. And if PRC had simply taken the NT at end of lease, and not reached an agreement on the other areas, what would UK have done?
        hnarn 6y ago
        Power plants and water treatment coming from the PRC is a result of history, so one cannot just look at the current state of affairs and conclude that no other outcomes were possible. As with anywhere in the world, the water and electricity comes from where it comes because it's the most economical solution, not because it's the only solution. I'm just trying to make the point that had an empire still been in control of HK, things would have looked very different, but that's not the case so they don't. There's nothing inherently with HK's connection to mainland that makes it impossible for it to be self-sustaining, but there was never a point, or an economical or political will to do so. The most obvious comparison to HK is Singapore, which is now a free state and has its own military, together with being one of the top financial spots in Asia. Yet the history is not that different from Hong Kong. The different outcomes are not down to the simple fact that HK Island is a barren rock that would be technically impossible to sustain independently, but a complex result of geopolitics which today makes it impossible to release from the grasp of China.

by bArray 6y ago

blackrock 6y ago

Why do people of the U.K. continue to think that their opinion matters anymore, in regards to Hong Kong? All British government administration of Hong Kong, terminated at the moment of the handover in 1997. The Chinese honorably held up their end of the agreement, of their lease of Hong Kong to the British. They could have invaded at any time, but they didn’t. And the agreement was actually made by the Qing Dynasty, so the new China government at the time, could have rendered that agreement, null and void. But they didn’t. And let’s be honest here, when the British signed the 99-year lease, they never really expected to leave Hong Kong. They were just toying with the Chinese, by signing the lease with the Qing government. Little did they know at the time, that their exploitative empire would crumble in less than 50 years. If the people of the U.K. truly do support the people of Hong Kong, like you say, then they should take another referendum vote, on whether they want the Hong Kong people to move to Britain, and become British citizens. This is how you can support them.

hnarn 6y ago
> Why do people of the U.K. continue to think that their opinion matters anymore, in regards to Hong Kong? > All British government administration of Hong Kong, terminated at the moment of the handover in 1997. You answer your own question. The handover wasn't, but is a legally binding agreement with the United Kingdom, where among other things the "One country, two systems" principle was agreed to be in effect until 2047. > And let’s be honest here, when the British signed the 99-year lease, they never really expected to leave Hong Kong. The 99-year lease was only in regards to the New Territories. The Treaty of Nanking stipulates that HK Island was ceded "in perpetuity" to the UK. There's also the 1860 Convention of Peking. The PRC did not "recognize" this during negotiations, but as we can all see it seems par for the course for the PRC to simply "recognize" whatever parts they agree with at the time. If one is to draw the purely legal argument here, at least be consistent.
- billfruit 6y ago
  I think New Territories is the lions share of the geographical area of modern HK. If UK had not transferred the other smaller areas in 1997, it would be the UK that would be in trouble, holding on to a small untenable piece of territory (Since the territories not under the 99 year lease are dependent upon the New Territories for many essential matters.)
  - hnarn 6y ago
    Being the lions’ share geographically means nothing out of context. HK Island is the urban and financial center of Hong Kong, so saying that it would never have survived with NT ceded to the PRC is like saying Manhattan and Brooklyn would never have survived being ceded to the UK because they didn’t hold New Jersey. Sure, it’s impractical to have a hostile mainland neighbor but if the place you’re occupying is one of the worlds largest harbors with all that entails, and you have the military capacity and will to defend it, it’s far from “untenable”. The main reason HK was ceded at all was because of the total decline of the British Empire, it’s not much more complicated than that.
    - billfruit 6y ago
      I think there was logistical issues with power plants and water treatment, and such vital infrastructure being largely in the New Territories, is what I remember. And if PRC had simply taken the NT at end of lease, and not reached an agreement on the other areas, what would UK have done?
      - hnarn 6y ago
        Power plants and water treatment coming from the PRC is a result of history, so one cannot just look at the current state of affairs and conclude that no other outcomes were possible. As with anywhere in the world, the water and electricity comes from where it comes because it's the most economical solution, not because it's the only solution. I'm just trying to make the point that had an empire still been in control of HK, things would have looked very different, but that's not the case so they don't. There's nothing inherently with HK's connection to mainland that makes it impossible for it to be self-sustaining, but there was never a point, or an economical or political will to do so. The most obvious comparison to HK is Singapore, which is now a free state and has its own military, together with being one of the top financial spots in Asia. Yet the history is not that different from Hong Kong. The different outcomes are not down to the simple fact that HK Island is a barren rock that would be technically impossible to sustain independently, but a complex result of geopolitics which today makes it impossible to release from the grasp of China.