6 ms·
It's sadly symbolic of the current political direction of the UK. It's probably not too important either way, but the chagos island deal is one of the most one
by FridayoLeary 1y ago
It's sadly symbolic of the current political direction of the UK. It's probably not too important either way, but the chagos island deal is one of the most one sided I have ever seen. On a darker note the UK was unable to protect the people of Hong Kong when it mattered in another symbol of it's decline. At least they had enough courage and strength to support Ukraine in the early days of the war when nobody else would. Boris Johnson for all his other faults deserves full credit for that
- lazide 1y ago‘Protect the people of hong Kong’? You mean follow the treaty they signed ages ago?
- lostlogin 1y agoWho was the treaty signed with? It wasn’t the CCP.
- lazide 1y agoAnd you think it would be ‘protecting’ the people of Hong Kong to argue with the CCP about it? Lulz Or that it’s ever been about ‘protecting’ anyone when the British Crown fights anyone over territory? As compared to asserting ownership? Not to mention the UK nearly lost it’s fight with Argentina - it wouldn’t even be pissing in the wind to go to war with China over Hong Kong.
- mc32 1y agoHow did Argentina “almost win” the Falklands war? I thought it was over almost before it started? Only thing that worked were some French missiles.
- lazide 1y agoThe UK had no ready means to replace their (far more significant than anyone expected) losses, and were at the very far end of their logistics chain. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War]. Which for the UK is crazy embarrassing. ‘Sun Never Sets on The British Empire’ and all. They lost 6 ships (including 2 destroyers and 2 frigates), 24 helicopters, and 10 fighters + 255 KIA in the debacle. If the french hadn’t disabled those missiles, it would have been an even bigger mess. Do you think the UK gov’t wants to admit they got saved by the French? If Argentina had their act even a little more together, or had even a little more commitment, there is nothing the UK could have done about it - except maybe nuke Buenos Aires. Which would probably have been a step too far, even for Thatcher. Argentina was expecting zero resistance and got embarrassed they lost ships and soldiers too, and pulled out because it was making the Argentinian gov’t look bad. But it was also really embarrassing for the UK. They had more losses there than they did fighting the Gulf War alongside the US. In fact, since Northern Ireland, it took Afghanistan to even come close - and that was over a period of 10 years compared to ~ 6 months. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6605529d91a320001182b1b2/UK_armed_forces_operational_deaths_post_World_War_2_2024.pdf https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6605529d91a32...]
- budududuroiu 1y agoAre you high? The handover of Hong Kong was signed between the UK and the PRC
- lazide 1y agoI suspect they’re referring to the 99 year lease the UK signed in 1898 with the Qing dynasty. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declarati...] As to how they think that has anything to do with their points, it doesn’t of course - and the UK agreed, which is why they left. Also, because it’s not like the UK had any other choice.
- lostlogin 1y agoI’m referring to the start of the agreement, not the end.
- budududuroiu 1y agoFair, but why does that matter? The UK voluntarily relinquished control and handed HK back to the PRC
- lostlogin 1y agoIt did and I don’t think it could have gone to anyone else, leaving the choice as giving it to China, or keeping it. The argument that it shouldn’t have gone to the CCP was one I heard from someone who lived there.
- budududuroiu 1y agoWhy not? The PRC is the successor state. It makes less sense to hand HK over to ROC because the ROC never had sovereignty over HK.
- lostlogin 1y agoSuccessor state by force, not by people’s choice. The small part that ended up democratic hasn’t chosen to join the PRC.
- CorrectHorseBat 1y agoThey could have done quite a lot to piss of the Chinese while still honoring the treaty. The lease was only for the New Territories, but they gave all of HK back. Or they could have tried to give it to the government in Taiwan. Whether that would have protected the people of Hong Kong is another matter. I think at the time people were still optimistic about the direction China was taking and they might have thought China would be a democracy by 2047.
- renewiltord 1y agoTaiwan would have refused since this would have instantly precipitated war with the mainland.
- lazide 1y agoIf you think the UK gov’t was in any position to piss China off then (or now!) without it costing them and anyone else involved far more than it’s worth, I don’t know what to say. It’s honestly amazing that China didn’t apply more ‘direct’ pressure to get HK bad sooner. There is nothing the UK likely would have done about it. Bad for business I guess? Macau transferred over around the same time. The Qing dynasty ‘remnants’ in Taiwan would have just been steamrolled if they’d gone anywhere near it. And not like there was any real cultural reason why HK’ers would accept them anyway, or that the Qing were well loved. CCP steamrolled them in mainland China like they did because they were, by all accounts, terrible. Sometimes, life just sucks.
- CorrectHorseBat 1y ago>If you think the UK gov’t was in any position to piss China off then (or now!) without it costing them and anyone else involved far more than it’s worth, I don’t know what to say. Oh no, I definitely don't think that. >It’s honestly amazing that China didn’t apply more ‘direct’ pressure to get HK bad sooner. There is nothing the UK likely would have done about it. Bad for business I guess? Macau transferred over around the same time. The 80-90's were a bit too early to take such a risk I think, now they wouldn't take such a deal. The British likely got the best deal they could get. >The Qing dynasty ‘remnants’ in Taiwan would have just been steamrolled if they’d gone anywhere near it. And not like there was any real cultural reason why HK’ers would accept them anyway, or that the Qing were well loved. CCP steamrolled them in mainland China like they did because they were, by all accounts, terrible. The Republic of China government is no more (or less) a Qing dynasty remnant than the CCP is. They were indeed terrible, but that's a long time a go, most people involved are dead by now and the country has changed a lot. The CCP on the other hand is going back to the Mao era. The civil war took two decades, in which the Kuomintang nearly defeated the Communists and had to fight off the Japanese while the Communists got bankrolled by the Soviets. I'd hardly call that steamrolled.
- wk_end 1y agoThey might mean “retaliate to the violation of the treaty they signed”. Hong Kong was supposed to get fifty years of autonomy; the National Security Law ended that prematurely.
- lazide 1y agoThe UK long ago lost any ability to meaningfully enforce those terms. Or do you expect them to somehow start torpedoing Chinese boats in the Straight or something to make China pay?
- rwmj 1y agoThe UK offered residence with a path to citizenship for all BNO holders in Hong Kong, which was pretty much the limits of the UK's power. What are we going to do? Invade Hong Kong? Hold China over a barrel by refusing to sell whatever it is we sell to China (Scotch whisky?) As for the Chagos islands, it's by far the best thing to get rid of them. There's no value at all and a lot of trouble keeping them.
- FridayoLeary 1y agoI don't agree. The UK can still accomplish great things if has the political will, but each time they concede they lose more and more ground. Could they have done more to protect HK? perhaps but they didn't try and now we'll never know. Again the chagos islands, I know very little about them, but I understand that the islanders themselves hate the deal. And the UK is offering a whole lot of money to keep the military bases they had for free. You can say it was a matter of international law but Mauritius claim to the island is laughable, they are more than 1000 miles away. Also the way the deal was presented as a step away from colonialism etc just feels wrong. Timid apologetics isn't a good way to advance the UKs interest, nor is it helpful for the rest of the world for the UK to be weak and ineffective. Just look at how they helped Ukraine. Again the politicians have no will or national pride to stand up for the UKs interests and it's a shame.
- afavour 1y ago> perhaps but they didn't try Do we know that? Presumably there were negotiations. Normally both parties in a negotiation start at extreme opposites and make their way somewhere in the middle. Obviously we don’t/won’t know every detail but I don’t know you can say they didn’t try. Simple reality is that the UK wasn’t holding a lot of cards in that negotiation.
- random9749832 1y agoI think you are just highlighting how the UK is losing agency in the world. At this rate it will become a museum.
- 1y ago
- kingkawn 1y agoThe idea that the British were holding territory in the world to protect anyone is laughable
- WillPostForFood 1y agoDo you think citizens of Hong Kong would choose the Chinese rule of today, or go back to British rule if they could?
- lostlogin 1y agoThat isn’t why the British were there though.
- jedberg 1y ago> Do you think citizens of Hong Kong would choose the Chinese rule of today, or go back to British rule if they could? I think the people that lived there in 1997 would absolutely want to go back to British rule. But you have to remember that it's been nearly 30 years since it went to Chinese rule. All the young people there prefer Chinese rule, because they grew up with schools teaching them that the British were bad and the Chinese were good. And at the same time, the most pro-British people left, either going to the USA or Canada, or actually taking advantage of the UKs right-to-return programs and going to the UK itself. So if you asked the people who lived there today, they majority say they prefer Chinese rule. My prediction is that they will no longer operate as an SEZ within the decade and will be folded fully into China.
- CorrectHorseBat 1y agoI don't think so, did you forget about the Umbrella Movement?
- jedberg 1y agoThat was over a decade ago. There is almost an entire generation that has come up since then, being told China is good and British is bad. And in the meantime China made protesting illegal, and now rounds up and ships off anyone who protests. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/28/i-was-so-naive-10-years-after-umbrella-protests-hongkongers-remember-chinas-crackdown https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/28/i-was-so-naive... But more importantly, it's more complicated than just China good/bad: https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/05/how-people-in-hong-kong-view-mainland-china-and-their-own-identity/ https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/05/how-peopl... However what that shows is that the majority of adults in HK (74%) feel an attachment to China, and in the meantime China is making it illegal to disagree with them.
- petermcneeley 1y agoAre you aware the UK is basically bankrupt? https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/26/more-pain-reeves-government-borrowing-jumps-26-year-high https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/aug/26/more-pain-r...
- neilwilson 1y agoAre you aware that is an impossible situation in the UK and that you should never listen to journalists or economists on this topic. They haven’t a clue what they are talking about. Look at the one month Treasury bill to see the actual situation.
- jbm 1y agoI don't know how much I trust bond buyers and other "Market participants" to have a meaningful long-term view of a financial position with the many destabilising factors we are seeing (Social, Climate, etc..). They are accurate until they aren't. Maybe 20 years from now, you will be on a resort laughing at the treasury bill rates of 2025 and compare their accuracy to pets.com.
- neilwilson 1y agoThey are having a meaningful view that is misinterpreted deliberately by those with agendas - either anti government agendas or more free money agendas. Rising rates at long maturities is a signal of uncertainty. The market is wanting shorter maturities. So stop issuing the long stuff the market doesn’t want and issue the shorter stuff it does want. Even to the point of leaving all of it on overnight until the dust settles
- KineticLensman 1y ago> that you should never listen to journalists or economists on this topic These journalists do not say that Britain is bankrupt. Their article was arbitrarily cited by someone else to support his claim about Britain.
- FridayoLeary 1y ago
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- budududuroiu 1y agoProtect the people of Hong Kong from what?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- Cyph0n 1y agoNo, it’s not symbolic of anything. The reality is that the UK has long been relegated to the status of a non-world power, but still acts as if it is one by clinging onto its colonial past. This reminds me of an interview with the CCP spokesperson from last year when asked about how China sees the UK (timestamped): https://youtu.be/8jZ0KTRUgpU?t=240 https://youtu.be/8jZ0KTRUgpU?t=240
- permo-w 1y agoyou'd be naive to believe anyone saying anything like this. in fact if a speaker with vested interests feels the need to say something like this, then more than likely the reverse is true. the UK often tiptoes where it should stride, and it's in China's interest to keep it that way. it's obviously not a super power and hasn't been since WW2--or Suez depending on how you look at it--but it's still the world's sixth largest economy, has nukes, and has masses of soft and hard power that other powers would prefer that it doesn't make use of
- ksec 1y agoWhat CCP is essentially saying Britain is nothing in their view.
- permo-w 1y agothat's the image they want to put across
- BoredPositron 1y agoThey have nukes which is enough to sit on the table. Even if you don't like it or them.
- Cyph0n 1y agoNorth Korea has nukes too.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- majormajor 1y agoHow would the UK have kept Hong Kong if China didn't want them to? Would an invasion have been better for the people of Hong Kong? How would the UK have won that battle from that far away?
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- throawaywpg 1y agoThere's no realistic way for the UK or anyone else to guarantee Hong Kong political freedom short of war with China.