‘Protect the people of hong Kong’?

You mean follow the treaty they signed ages ago?

CorrectHorseBat 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

They 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.

▲

lazide 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

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.

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 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		>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.

▲

renewiltord 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Taiwan would have refused since this would have instantly precipitated war with the mainland.

▲

wk_end 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

They 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 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		The 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?

▲

lostlogin 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Who was the treaty signed with? It wasn’t the CCP.

▲

budududuroiu 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Are you high? The handover of Hong Kong was signed between the UK and the PRC

▲

lazide 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

I 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_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 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I’m referring to the start of the agreement, not the end.

▲

budududuroiu 6 days ago | parent [-]

Fair, but why does that matter? The UK voluntarily relinquished control and handed HK back to the PRC

▲

lostlogin 6 days ago | parent [-]

It 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 6 days ago | parent [-]

Why 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 6 days ago | parent [-]

Successor state by force, not by people’s choice. The small part that ended up democratic hasn’t chosen to join the PRC.

	▲	budududuroiu 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		Not only were the PLA and CCP massively popular because of the insane corruption and hyperinflation under the Nationalists, the ROC imposed (at the time), the longest martial law in human history [1] Taiwan is democratic today, because of transitional justice, but at the time when the PRC succeeded the ROC in China, the nationalists led by Chiang were as dictatorial as you can get [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)

▲

lazide 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

And 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 6 days ago | parent [-]

How 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 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		The 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]. 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/6605529d91a32...]