Didn't Ansom Chan & Martin Lee go to London to gauge how much the UK was prepared to make some noise about the Joint Declaration they are a consignee of. A similar visit to the US who have significant influence in the international community. (they got their answer)
It was obviously more sensible to send a couple of quasi-retired pro-liberal democracy advocates than any of the current crop of leaders.
LOL! you should reword that, "it was obviously senseless and pointless to send anyone to gauge how much UK cared, since they, to put it mildy, DON'T, despite hollow words of "support" from the toothless deputy prime minister, nick clegg!" just short time before their visit, "Prime Minister Li Keqiang visited UK in June to sign $184 billion worth of trade deals with Prime Minister Cameron who not even passively whispered concerns of HKG "Democracy", which he knows only too well, HKG has NEVER had."
even if the miniscule chance they did make a noise (likely nothing more than a *sigh*), they could do nowt. so just face the facts, HKG pro democracy crew can scream and shout all they want, but HKG , relative to other developed nations hasn't done badly with china "taking controls"
Last edited by christof1979; 26-08-2014 at 03:30 AM.
Are you suggesting no one should have gone to try to protect the joint declaration?
Really?
here is what was said - http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevi...ral/11452.html
Perhaps you could submit a letter to the UK Gov about the relationship and the joint decralation
http://www.parliament.uk/business/co...bmission-form/
They will be publishing a report
http://data.parliament.uk/writtenevi...ral/11452.html
Some would say it the institutions that make the bedrock of Hong Kong society that are gradually being corrupted such as the press, LegCo, Police, Education, Political appointees, district councils etc.
But if your focus is on the $$$$$$ rather than the needs of for the foundations of a good society you are probably correct.
Last edited by East_coast; 26-08-2014 at 08:10 AM.
You mean with Mr Cameron present when deals were signed with the UK private sector? The UK government plays a smaller role in society than the CCP who run a 'state capitalist' system.
Last edited by East_coast; 26-08-2014 at 07:59 AM.
In July Deputy PM Nick Clegg "sincerely" assured Anson Chan and Martin Lee clowns that they will get UK and international "support". (Nick: my little yellow subjects, we will "honour" our 1984 "promise" to mobilise the international community (like us, they will "care", or "can" "punish") and pursue every legal avenue available. LOL!)
Richard Ottoway, head of the inquiry, says Beijing appears to have breached the joint declaration, but admits Britain is in no position, lets repeat that, Britain is no position to hit china with sanctions or any punishments.
Clown Anson Chan still interested to see what London has to say about the Beijing's decision. PM David Cameron has been conspicuously silent about the latest political turmoil in Hong Kong for fear of upsetting China. get the msg clowns!
Last edited by Tioga; 03-09-2014 at 02:33 AM.
I don't get this UK thing.
When you sell your car, business, apartment, iPhone ... you may tell the new buyer "take care of it for me". But the new buyer has no obligation and you have no right to dictate what he does with it.
It's an international treaty, Shri, the Joint Declaration. The UK is co-guarantor of Hong Kong's 50 years of "one country, two systems" until 2047. Hence the reports the UK puts out every six months on the state of Hong Kong's autonomy and progress (well, not any more) towards universal suffrage.
Last edited by bookblogger; 03-09-2014 at 06:17 AM.
It's strange how much has changed since the Joint Declaration was signed in this month, 1984. At that time there was some creative double-think by both Britain and China, for which both sides deserve credit. The People's Republic had never recognized the treaties that ceded the different parts of HK, but continued to act as if it did. Britain knew that the claim to possess HK Island and Kowloon in perpetuity was empty, but acted as if it wasn't. Britain argued that HK's basic freedoms, capitalist system, and rule of law would be eroded under Chinese sovereignty unless there were other guarantees. The Chinese knew that this denigrated China; they pretended that the anarchy of the Cultural Revolution was just an aberration; but they acted as if Britain's point was valid.
The diplomats who signed the Joint Declaration were also double-thinking. They knew that it was a success, and gave the reassurances that people hoped for; but they knew too that, like any other international treaty, it might become unenforceable in the future.
No-one knew that China would become 'an economic power-house' and 'an emerging super-power'. No-one knew that the United States, which was regaining its global respect after Vietnam, and could have been so influential, was going to lose it again in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Now it seems that we are in our own period of double-think. Our Internet is as free as anywhere else, but other media are apparently self-censoring. We think that if we are ever on trial in a criminal case, or involved in a civil case, we will get justice; but we think that the police may be politically biased. We have been granted universal suffrage after only 17 years of Chinese sovereignty, an unprecedented rate of progress, a development that has taken 200 years in other countries; and yet ... enough said.