How? Only HK Island was real British, the rest was leased. Anyway, didn't happen, and I don't think because of China. Democracy was simply not on the agenda.China used threats of invasion to stop United Kingdom giving Hong Kong independence and democracy since 1950s
Calm down Mat...I'm not trying to argue...I'm making a genuine point. The OP has asked 'should' Britain intervene, not 'would'...your responses either:
1.) Indicate that you don't understand the difference between 'should' or 'would'.
or
2.) You're simply appearing on the thread to be annoying...just telling the OP and anyone who's interested how stupid it is.
If it's the former, check a dictionary, if it's the latter...well.....
There's a thread on here about football...i couldn't give a shit about football...hence why I'm not on that thread...
You can click on the articles to read for yourself you know. But here's the brief version from Mat's Wiki link:
Recent declassified records showed there were discussions in 1958 between British and Hong Kong governments to allow Hong Kong to be self-governed. These discussions had been related to the British expulsion from India and growing anti-colonial sentiment in the remaining Crown Colonies. However, Zhou Enlai, representing the Communist Party of China at the time, warned that this "conspiracy" of democratisation would be a "very unfriendly act" and that the Communist Party wished the present colonial status of Hong Kong to continue with no change whatsoever.China's leaders explicitly wanted to "preserve the colonial status of Hong Kong".[3] Liao Chengzhi, a senior Chinese official in charge of Hong Kong affairs, said in 1960 that China "shall not hesitate to take positive action to have Hong Kong, Kowloon and New Territories liberated" should the status quo (i.e. democratic governance) be changed. The warning killed any democratic development for the next three decades.
Last edited by Gatts; 29-01-2016 at 04:14 PM.
Stop playing the moderator. I gave my opinion, you don't like it, fine but don't try the semantic argument and/or the sneaky personal comments.
All my answers on this thread were on the topic - you are making it personal, that's just not needed.
Anyway let's go back on the topic of democracy in HK etc etc - no time or willigness to argue with you over such trivial matters.
Last edited by Mat; 29-01-2016 at 05:48 PM.
I wonder, the issue of the British handover of HK back to China was actually first raised by the British, and Thatcher specifically, in 1982. Had she kept quiet on the issue and led time run to 1997, what could China do in that case?
Would China actually raise the issue themselves?
Last edited by Cho-man; 29-01-2016 at 05:56 PM.
Not sure about your analogy. Maybe it is more like an adopted child raised from birth until age 15, then given back to the patents by birth. But in the court proceedings it was clearly laid out the conditions under which the child would be raised. Then those conditions were clearly violated and you are the only person who can make a complaint as the child is underage and has no right of audience. Or to take the example of your ex being abused, reporting the police I suppose would be the UN in this case. Or perhaps because you no longer interested in getting nookie from her you would just say you are deeply concerned, but hope parent and child can work it out between themselves as a family matter without external interference. Overall not a helpful analogy in my opinion - HK is not a child and neither UK nor China are mothers or lovers.
They may have been too little too late, but how do you see Chris Patten's reforms as being in the interest of Empire and crown? Seems to me they were generally aimed at the economic livelihood of HK people and also securing as far as possible under the Basic Law a democratic future without fear of arbitrary detention. He was however widely denounced by British businesses as taking stupid principled stands that were damaging business with China.
Morally should take a stand yes, the UK said they would when the Sino-British Declaration was signed and have not kept their word. Particularly when a very large number of people in HK, perhaps the majority, are not happy with the way things are going. Probably would not do any good though.
UK should speak out much louder about Lee Bo, as he is a British Citizen. That is in the UK national interest, otherwise they eventually become a country that is easily pushed around. Ultimately, in my opinion, what is at stake is the right to free speech worldwide and not just in China or HK.
The British Foreign Secretary may say
But how can he guarantee that? Especially if he makes no stand now and China becomes more economically powerful in the future.Asked if he could guarantee that the UK-based relatives of Lee Bo and Gui Minhai would not also disappear, Hammond said: “Certainly in the UK everybody should feel safe from being spirited anywhere. I would have a high degree of confidence that people in the UK are safe from any such activity