Handover of Hong Kong - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

'Cold war' communist versus capitalist ideological struggle (1946 - 1990) and everything else in the post World War II era (1946 onwards).
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
By Euroman
#14170096
Thompson_NCL wrote:Don't be silly. Gibraltar (just like the Falklands) will remain British and will not be absorbed in the least.



Same goes for Hong Kong? Oh wait...
#14170114
Thompson_NCL wrote:Hong Kong was on a 99 year lease, the lease ran out. Gibraltar is not leased.



That's a big fat lie. My guess is you either are smart enough to know it and therefore lie to me, or really are ignorant of your own history and laws.


Which one is it?


On 29 August 1842, the cession was formally ratified in the Treaty of Nanking, which ceded Hong Kong "in perpetuity" to Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ho ... itish_rule


I could do this all day long, except I know that a cretinous comment is coming next by someone who doesn't know anything.


1842+99 = 1941 (basic maths really)
#14170116
Not that it matters. There's about a quarter of the world that was British, once upon a time. There is no dearth of examples.

Let's start with America, before jaunting over to the jewel of the dead empire, India, before a quick jump back over to Canada, and how could we forget Australia, or Nigeria, or Zimbabwe, or Pakistan, or South Africa, or Malaysia...
#14170123
You are right. It doesn't matter. It crumbled as fast as it was built. For me, I am just enjoying the fact that almost every Brit that I ever spoke with didn't know that Hong Kong was British territory for all perpetuity. Until a better armed China asked for it back.
#14170151
Euroman wrote:That's a big fat lie. My guess is you either are smart enough to know it and therefore lie to me, or really are ignorant of your own history and laws.

Which one is it?

On 29 August 1842, the cession was formally ratified in the Treaty of Nanking, which ceded Hong Kong "in perpetuity" to Britain.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Ho ... itish_rule

I could do this all day long, except I know that a cretinous comment is coming next by someone who doesn't know anything.

1842+99 = 1941 (basic maths really)




Hong Kong's territory was acquired from three separate treaties: the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, the Treaty of Beijing in 1860, and The Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory in 1898, which gave the UK the control of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon (area south of Boundary Street), and the New Territories (area north of Boundary Street and south of the Shenzhen River, and outlying islands), respectively. Although Hong Kong Island and Kowloon had been ceded to the United Kingdom in perpetuity, the control on the New Territories was a 99-year lease. The finite nature of the 99-year lease did not hinder Hong Kong's development as the New Territories were combined as a part of Hong Kong. By 1997, it was impractical to separate the three territories and only return the New Territories. In addition, with the scarcity of land and natural resources in Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, the New Territories were being developed with large-scale infrastructures and other developments, with the break-even day lying well past 30 June 1997. Thus, the status of the New Territories after the expiry of the 99-year lease became important for Hong Kong's economic development.


It would not have been possible to maintain Hong Kong in the face of a hostile China with key land lost from the lease. That is why the lease is the critical point in deciding the fate of Hong Kong.

But feel free to keep flailing like an angry child. Most the forum find it amusing and so do I.
#14170164
In other words, Hong Kong Island (the financial centre of Asia) and Kowloon (formerly a slum) couldn't be kept due to a land lease expiring on the NT? How did Hong Kong Island manage without the New Territories for almost 60 years? Magic? Yes, Britain capitulated to a hostile China. Fully agree.
#14170220
Euroman wrote:You are right. It doesn't matter. It crumbled as fast as it was built. For me, I am just enjoying the fact that almost every Brit that I ever spoke with didn't know that Hong Kong was British territory for all perpetuity. Until a better armed China asked for it back.


Had China been weaker at the end of the last century, Hong Kongs lease would doubtless have been renewed. But it was not.

While the UK govt' sold the hand over of Hong Kong as peaceful, on the day, the Chinese landed their paratroopers first. A clear message was being sent.


Gibraltar, like the Falklands are in entirely different geopolitical positions to Hong Kong due to the comparative weakness of the states contesting them with the UK. Neither Spain nor Argentina, nor indeed, Spain plus all it's allies, plus Argentina plus all it's allies are in a position to do much about anything, The Chinese however, were.
(Spain can't even secure it's own territorial claims vs Morocco). Nor is there any particular expectation of either them to be able to change this in the forseable future.
Lets face it, the Spanish Empire is more likely to implode further than it is to expand iself into a greater world power and take over from any of it's historic rivals of centuries ago.
Spains greatest enemy is itself.

Spain is not China and neither is Argentina. Little dogs yapping.
#14170283
Thompson_NCL wrote:Not to mention the populace of Gibraltar and the Falklands are mostly Britons, whereas Hong Kong was mostly Chinese.


Ehh, natives in Gibraltar are ethnically a Hispanic people, speaking a language called Llanito, which is very similar to Andalusian Spanish. And even those are just 24% of the population. Ethnic Britons are 27% of the population. Italians are 20%, Portuguese are 10%, Maltese are 8%, Jews are 3%.

And despite that huge ethnic mix, 83.22% of Gibraltarians declared their nationality to be simply "Gibraltarian", with 9.56% declaring themselves "British"...
User avatar
By Otebo
#14174619
The loss of Hong Kong - another reason to thank Thatcher. The Tories have form when it comes to hauling down the Union Flag, at least Labour were open about their wish to dismantle the Empire. The Tories wrap themselves in the red, white and blue then plunge the knife in the back when nobody expects it. Just ask the Rhodesians.

[youtube]zWT6383OxRc[/youtube]

Even now it is an emotional thing to watch

We obviously did something right though, judging by the protest symbol which many in Hong Kong still choose.

Image

This is ridiculous. Articles showing attacks on s[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

It is easy to tell the tunnel was made of pre fab […]

Pretty clear France will be taking a leading role […]

He is even less coherent than Alex Jones. My gu[…]