Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
leicsmac

Hong Kong Interesting Times

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-29405576

 

Nice to see that China's totalitarian fist doesn't quite reach as far as HK - as yet, anyway. Might be interesting to see how the mainland actually handles all this and what the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have to say about it seeing as they oversaw the handover of power.

 

Also, it will be interesting to see how another 'great power' handles civil disobedience after the Ferguson protests in the US earlier this year. Will there be a repeat of Tianamen? (I doubt it.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally found it quite intresting that we bottled it and handed over Hong Kong to the chinese but fought for the Falklands....

 

 

 

I mean , its not like there is much difference between China and Argentina , militarily....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally found it quite intresting that we bottled it and handed over Hong Kong to the chinese but fought for the Falklands....

 

 

 

I mean , its not like there is much difference between China and Argentina , militarily....

 

 

We had Hong Kong on a 99-year lease, expiring in 1997, so would have had no grounds for keeping it under international law, whereas the Falklands had been claimed as a permanent colony.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had Hong Kong on a 99-year lease, expiring in 1997, so would have had no grounds for keeping it under international law, whereas the Falklands had been claimed as a permanent colony.

 

 

 

And since when have facts been a part of Foxestalk discussions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just thought we had been big wimps over it all! Thank you for restoring my faith in our military capabilities :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And since when have facts been a part of Foxestalk discussions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just thought we had been big wimps over it all! Thank you for restoring my faith in our military capabilities :D

 

lol

 

I wouldn't have your faith restored too much. Would've been interesting if Hong Kong had been a full-scale colony and China had demanded it back.....not sure I'd have had much faith in our military capability to handle that!

 

Nobody has been rushing to enforce the rule of international law on Russia too firmly for annexing Crimea and invading eastern Ukraine....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had Hong Kong on a 99-year lease, expiring in 1997, so would have had no grounds for keeping it under international law, whereas the Falklands had been claimed as a permanent colony.

 

Not quite right, Hong Kong and Kowloon (the really built up areas) were ceded in perpetuity (like Gibraltar). Only the New Territories were the part ceded for 99 years. The Chinese claimed all the treaties were 'unjust and unfair' and wanted everything back.

 

And since when have facts been a part of Foxestalk discussions?

 

 

 

 

 

 

I just thought we had been big wimps over it all! Thank you for restoring my faith in our military capabilities :D

 

Sorry to burst the bubble, I'm afraid the leader did indeed point out to Margaret Thatcher in the 80s that we had no hope of defending it if they wanted to take it by force, they could also easily have cut off supplies to it without a direct military intervention. Plus if we'd only given back the New Territories, the remaining city would be without it's outer suburbs, ports etc. probably full of refugees not wanting to become Chinese, and generally a nightmare to manage. After a lot of negotiation we gave up the demand of continuing the British Administration there. The Chinese concessions were that it would be governed separately and things like the economic freedoms and the British based law system would be left fairly unchanged.

 

Although we did do the fairly clever move of making them much more democratic in 1994, making it so the Chinese were seen to be obviously removing the reforms a few years later, and leading to these problems down the line...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not quite right, Hong Kong and Kowloon (the really built up areas) were ceded in perpetuity (like Gibraltar). Only the New Territories were the part ceded for 99 years. The Chinese claimed all the treaties were 'unjust and unfair' and wanted everything back.

 

 

Sorry to burst the bubble, I'm afraid the leader did indeed point out to Margaret Thatcher in the 80s that we had no hope of defending it if they wanted to take it by force, they could also easily have cut off supplies to it without a direct military intervention. Plus if we'd only given back the New Territories, the remaining city would be without it's outer suburbs, ports etc. probably full of refugees not wanting to become Chinese, and generally a nightmare to manage. After a lot of negotiation we gave up the demand of continuing the British Administration there. The Chinese concessions were that it would be governed separately and things like the economic freedoms and the British based law system would be left fairly unchanged.

 

Although we did do the fairly clever move of making them much more democratic in 1994, making it so the Chinese were seen to be obviously removing the reforms a few years later, and leading to these problems down the line...

 

Thanks for the clarification!  :thumbup:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I'm right in saying that, unlike the Falkland Islands, the overwhelming majority of people in Hong Kong at the time of the handover were keen to return to Chinese rule (as they are ethnically Han after all) but still wanted to retain strong cultural and diplomatic links to Britain, which is exactly what they achieved.  These protests seem to be in response to the mainlands attempts to bring it into line.

 

It's only a matter of time before the Chinese try to deflect attention and criticism by blaming us for the protests. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I'm right in saying that, unlike the Falkland Islands, the overwhelming majority of people in Hong Kong at the time of the handover were keen to return to Chinese rule (as they are ethnically Han after all) but still wanted to retain strong cultural and diplomatic links to Britain, which is exactly what they achieved.  These protests seem to be in response to the mainlands attempts to bring it into line.

 

It's only a matter of time before the Chinese try to deflect attention and criticism by blaming us for the protests. 

 

I think they already are. Along with 'foreign' influence supposedly 'stirring up' the protesters, according to the media. When they're reporting on it at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are the Chinese also claiming it's only about ten people and a small dog protesting and that 99% of Hong Kongers love their government? That's the usual line.

 

That's pretty much bang on, from the stuff I've read. Oh, and apparently 99% of HKers love 'order'...whatever that means.

 

We should take it back

 

How, exactly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We should take it back

The people don't want British rule, either.

The place runs much more efficiently and is much cleaner than it was pre hand over, by all accounts.

They just want political and cultural freedom which is what was promised when we gave it back. Unfortunately, the Chinese try and interfere more every year.

Scotland's rather beautiful. And imagine all that whiskey we'd lose.

How about we give them Herefordshire?

Having been to Scotland and Hong Kong, I'd swap in a heartbeat!

No just give them the Saff estate. Also solve half the unemployment problem. :)

I thought you lived in Highfields?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...