Most people believe there was no choice. Most of the territory was on a lease that was expiring and would have legally returned to China in 1997, splitting the

Most people believe there was no choice. Most of the territory was on a lease that was expiring and would have legally returned to China in 1997, splitting the city in two. What the Brits should have done was to push reforms for democratic governance before they left. They could have allowed a fully democratic local government that would have survived the handover and been enshrined in the Basic Law. Instead, all promises of letting HK some democratic autonomy have been broken and stepped on, leading to the current situation. China didn't like this idea of introducing democratic reforms in HK before the handover but the Brits are still at fault. A colony is a dictature, the British had no interest in having any type of self-governance framework for HK. In the past 10 years -until the events of last year- there was little outspoken hate for China in HK. Most people were OK with the notion of being Chinese and part of China as long as their rights and freedoms were still honoured. China could/should have used HK as an experiment to show that its overall control didn't fear some level of local democratic process. Instead the CCP just showed the opposite: how fragile and fearful the it is of any potential dissent. [edit: spelling]