4 ms·
Can you explain why the first part is “nonsense”? China decided that part of this past agreement is no longer in force. If so, then why should any of it be vali
by throwawaysea 5y ago
Can you explain why the first part is “nonsense”? China decided that part of this past agreement is no longer in force. If so, then why should any of it be valid? It’s like a breach of contract from my perspective - it invalidates the whole.
- sudosysgen 5y agoTheir point was that the "international community" is non-sense. As far as deciding that the whole agreement is no longer in force, I don't see how that's an issue with the Chinese take. Without the agreement, the facts on the ground is that HK is under Chinese control, and the UK has no recourse but to invade it again. It's not like British control of HK was based on anything else before the agreement.