4 ms·

> If the U.K. or EU do not take this opportunity to assert themselves physically here (the Joint Declaration is their baby, after all) The EU did not have anyt

> If the U.K. or EU do not take this opportunity to assert themselves physically here (the Joint Declaration is their baby, after all) The EU did not have anything to do with the Sino-British Joint Declaration. Particularly not now after the UK decided to leave the EU.

aksss 6y ago
The agreement was signed in 1984/5, when the U.K. was a member of the EU, and did so with the EU’s blessing and backing. The agreement was also registered at the U.N. in ‘85, in which the EU member nations hold membership, some with permanent veto power. It’s overly simplistic to consider them divorced because their name isn’t in the agreement title, and incorrect to say they did not have anything to do with it. The EU continues to have vast regional interests in HK/China and surrounding territory, despite the U.K.’s secession. I’m not sure how that development changes things. Literally I’m not sure. Time will tell. But the EU probably shouldn’t look at this as a strictly “British” problem.
- freeflight 6y ago
  > The agreement was signed in 1984/5, when the U.K. was a member of the EU, and did so with the EU’s blessing and backing. Could you point to such an "EU's blessing and backing"? Evoking the UN doesn't really make that case, in that context, you could evoke some kind of "obligation" from literally every UN country. > It’s overly simplistic to consider them divorced because their name isn’t in the agreement title, and incorrect to say they did not have anything to do with it. Imho it's overly simplistic to evoke EU obligation on the fact that in 1985 the UK only ratified the Single European Act, at that point, it was still the "European Community" which is not the same as the European Union. Particularly in the context that back then HK was still considered UK territory, which the EC would have very little clout nor the authority to mess in. Even the modern-day EU does mostly refrain from interfering in such domestic territorial issues (Catalonia) as that's considered to be meddling too much in an individual EU country's sovereignty. You have to remember that the EU isn't some kind of "federal European government" that dictates to member states, the EC was even less so.
  - aksss 6y ago
    > in that context, you could evoke some kind of "obligation" from literally every UN country. Wasn’t that the point?
    - freeflight 6y ago
      The point for the UN maybe, but it still does not explain what any of that would have to do with the EU as the EU itself does not have voting rights in the UN but only holds enhanced observer status. I also don't see the UN interfering because if the UN would be willing and able to go there, then the whole Taiwan situation wouldn't exist. That's why as unpopular of a opinion it might be, I don't see the HK protesters getting any kind of international backing and if countries like the UK and US are so insistent on getting involved there then their best bet would be to offer people from HK citizenship, and with that, I mean actual proper citizenship and not this lip-service pseudo-citizenship. But I don't see that happening because none of these countries actually care about that HK situation, for them, just like pretty much all Five Eyes countries, this is very much torn in China's side they can keep on twisting to justify further antagonizing of China on the international stage. It's ice-cold and calculated geopolitics, the whole "humanitarian" angle might be pushed in the mainstream, like it's always to justify international interventions, but one has to be very naive to think any of that is rooted in serious and honest convictions and not just the "feel good" narrative it actually is.
- La1n 6y ago
  >It’s overly simplistic to consider them divorced because their name isn’t in the agreement title, and incorrect to say they did not have anything to do with it. It's overly simplistic to consider them part of the agreement because they did not veto it. The EU in 1985 is not even comparable to what it is now, this was before the Treaty of Maastricht, and well before the Treaty of Lisbon. edit: This was literally years before the "Common Foreign and Security Policy"
  - aksss 6y ago
    Right, the EU has only gotten more powerful since ‘85 and consolidated more power across the continent. On that we agree. I’m not sure how that dynamic reduces their interest in the failure of the JD, if that’s the argument you’re trying to advance. Even they would (at least officially) seem to disagree given their statements of late. To wit, they were in bed with the JD from the start, and have continued to voice opinion on the matter ever since, even after the U.K. seceded. Their regional interests have only increased. The point is that this matters not if they have no follow through. Aside from some recent adventurism in “easy” Africa, as a body and a populace they show no inclination for giving the world reason to respect their dyspeptic opinions. If they can’t look after Crimea - literally their backyard, it tells China exactly how much runway they’ll give in HK.

aksss 6y ago

The agreement was signed in 1984/5, when the U.K. was a member of the EU, and did so with the EU’s blessing and backing. The agreement was also registered at the U.N. in ‘85, in which the EU member nations hold membership, some with permanent veto power. It’s overly simplistic to consider them divorced because their name isn’t in the agreement title, and incorrect to say they did not have anything to do with it. The EU continues to have vast regional interests in HK/China and surrounding territory, despite the U.K.’s secession. I’m not sure how that development changes things. Literally I’m not sure. Time will tell. But the EU probably shouldn’t look at this as a strictly “British” problem.

freeflight 6y ago
> The agreement was signed in 1984/5, when the U.K. was a member of the EU, and did so with the EU’s blessing and backing. Could you point to such an "EU's blessing and backing"? Evoking the UN doesn't really make that case, in that context, you could evoke some kind of "obligation" from literally every UN country. > It’s overly simplistic to consider them divorced because their name isn’t in the agreement title, and incorrect to say they did not have anything to do with it. Imho it's overly simplistic to evoke EU obligation on the fact that in 1985 the UK only ratified the Single European Act, at that point, it was still the "European Community" which is not the same as the European Union. Particularly in the context that back then HK was still considered UK territory, which the EC would have very little clout nor the authority to mess in. Even the modern-day EU does mostly refrain from interfering in such domestic territorial issues (Catalonia) as that's considered to be meddling too much in an individual EU country's sovereignty. You have to remember that the EU isn't some kind of "federal European government" that dictates to member states, the EC was even less so.
- aksss 6y ago
  > in that context, you could evoke some kind of "obligation" from literally every UN country. Wasn’t that the point?
  - freeflight 6y ago
    The point for the UN maybe, but it still does not explain what any of that would have to do with the EU as the EU itself does not have voting rights in the UN but only holds enhanced observer status. I also don't see the UN interfering because if the UN would be willing and able to go there, then the whole Taiwan situation wouldn't exist. That's why as unpopular of a opinion it might be, I don't see the HK protesters getting any kind of international backing and if countries like the UK and US are so insistent on getting involved there then their best bet would be to offer people from HK citizenship, and with that, I mean actual proper citizenship and not this lip-service pseudo-citizenship. But I don't see that happening because none of these countries actually care about that HK situation, for them, just like pretty much all Five Eyes countries, this is very much torn in China's side they can keep on twisting to justify further antagonizing of China on the international stage. It's ice-cold and calculated geopolitics, the whole "humanitarian" angle might be pushed in the mainstream, like it's always to justify international interventions, but one has to be very naive to think any of that is rooted in serious and honest convictions and not just the "feel good" narrative it actually is.
La1n 6y ago
>It’s overly simplistic to consider them divorced because their name isn’t in the agreement title, and incorrect to say they did not have anything to do with it. It's overly simplistic to consider them part of the agreement because they did not veto it. The EU in 1985 is not even comparable to what it is now, this was before the Treaty of Maastricht, and well before the Treaty of Lisbon. edit: This was literally years before the "Common Foreign and Security Policy"
- aksss 6y ago
  Right, the EU has only gotten more powerful since ‘85 and consolidated more power across the continent. On that we agree. I’m not sure how that dynamic reduces their interest in the failure of the JD, if that’s the argument you’re trying to advance. Even they would (at least officially) seem to disagree given their statements of late. To wit, they were in bed with the JD from the start, and have continued to voice opinion on the matter ever since, even after the U.K. seceded. Their regional interests have only increased. The point is that this matters not if they have no follow through. Aside from some recent adventurism in “easy” Africa, as a body and a populace they show no inclination for giving the world reason to respect their dyspeptic opinions. If they can’t look after Crimea - literally their backyard, it tells China exactly how much runway they’ll give in HK.