Opinion: Why Do Some Thais Support China Over Hong Kong Protests?

[Lost]

The UK has offered 3 million Hong Kong residents citizenship and welcome them to the UK. Not sure where they'll fit them all but a nice gesture.

[HHTel]

It's not just any 3 million. Only those eligible. The difference is that until now, they've only been allowed access to the UK for 6 months which is being extended to 5 years.

About 350,000 UK passport holders, and 2.6 million others eligible, will be able to come to the UK for five years.

And after a further year, they will be able to apply for citizenship.

British National Overseas Passport holders in Hong Kong were granted special status in the 1980s but currently have restricted rights and are only entitled to visa-free access to the UK for six months.

Under the government's plans, all British Overseas Nationals and their dependants will be given right to remain in the UK, including the right to work and study, for five years. At this point, they will be able to apply for settled status, and after a further year, seek citizenship.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53 ... %20colony.

[Dannie Boy]

Even so, If three million people decided they would like to turn up, it would create havoc - fortunately there’s not little chance of that happening but time will tell

[europtimiste]

A sad history,difficult to come back to this failed hand over. The so called iron lady put down her panties in front of Chinese negotiators.

[HHTel]

It wasn't a 'failed handover'. The agreement was signed by the Chinese government and the British government, part of which states:

In accordance with the "One country, two systems" principle agreed between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China, the socialist system of the People's Republic of China would not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong's previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years. This would have left Hong Kong unchanged until 2047.

Nothing wrong with the agreement. It's the Chinese government that has chosen not to honour it.

[europtimiste]

It wasn't a 'failed handover'. The agreement was signed by the Chinese government and the British government, part of which states:

In accordance with the "One country, two systems" principle agreed between the United Kingdom and the People's Republic of China, the socialist system of the People's Republic of China would not be practised in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong's previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years. This would have left Hong Kong unchanged until 2047.

Nothing wrong with the agreement. It's the Chinese government that has chosen not to honour it.

The UK negotiator was Thatcher, she failed, she gave up too easily to Chinese demands.

[HHTel]

The UK negotiator was Thatcher, she failed, she gave up too easily to Chinese demands.

So what were these demands we gave in to? As they've gone against a signed agreement, written into basic law, what difference would anything have made. The Chinese would just ignore it as it has.

Before attempting an answer, check the history of Hong Kong. How we 'took' it from China in the first place. How did the 99 year lease come into play. Queen Victoria brokered that after a number of wars with China over trade (which China lost). Check out the 'opium wars' and others.

As I said there was an agreement in place. The Chinese went against it.

[migrant]

The UK negotiator was Thatcher, she failed, she gave up too easily to Chinese demands.

So what were these demands we gave in to? As they've gone against a signed agreement, written into basic law, what difference would anything have made. The Chinese would just ignore it as it has.

Before attempting an answer, check the history of Hong Kong. How we 'took' it from China in the first place. How did the 99 year lease come into play. Queen Victoria brokered that after a number of wars with China over trade (which China lost). Check out the 'opium wars' and others.

As I said there was an agreement in place. The Chinese went against it.

Maybe it can be repossessed due to the Chinese breaking the agreement

[HHTel]

In days gone by, that would certainly be the case.

[handdrummer]

The other day, Brunei, for financial help from China, agreed to stop complaining about China's presence in the South Sea. Money or force, China will get what it wants.

[HHTel]

The fact is that Hong Kong contributed massively to China's economic success. Hong Kong acted as a bridge between mainland China and 'the rest of the world'. China received huge investment from Hong Kong. Almost all finance was directed through Hong Kong as was trade.

Britain realised long ago that Hong Kong was undefendable. If China wanted it back, they could have taken it at any time. The reason they didn't was that it was better for them under colonial rule (One country, two systems). It was part of the reason Queen Victoria brokered the 99 year lease on the New Territories. I'm guessing that enacting this lease was a solution to hold onto Hong Kong and avoid any military action.

Actually, we could have held Hong Kong and Kowloon by treaty. The 99 year lease only applied to the 'New Territories". British rule had integrated Hong Kong and Kowloon with the New Territories which made it impractical to divide them. I'm sure if it had been practical, then the New Territories would have been handed back to China and Hong Kong and Kowloon would have remained British.

Euro's comment that Thatcher gave in to Chinese demands is laughable. Calling her a weak negotiator is like calling Churchill a pacifist. Thatcher was uncompromising when it came to negotiations (The Iron Lady, "The lady is not for turning"). Her strength in negotiations became her weakness. Her refusal to compromise finally led to her downfall.

[pharvey]

The fact is that Hong Kong contributed massively to China's economic success. Hong Kong acted as a bridge between mainland China and 'the rest of the world'. China received huge investment from Hong Kong. Almost all finance was directed through Hong Kong as was trade.

Britain realised long ago that Hong Kong was undefendable. If China wanted it back, they could have taken it at any time. The reason they didn't was that it was better for them under colonial rule (One country, two systems). It was part of the reason Queen Victoria brokered the 99 year lease on the New Territories. I'm guessing that enacting this lease was a solution to hold onto Hong Kong and avoid any military action.

Actually, we could have held Hong Kong and Kowloon by treaty. The 99 year lease only applied to the 'New Territories". British rule had integrated Hong Kong and Kowloon with the New Territories which made it impractical to divide them. I'm sure if it had been practical, then the New Territories would have been handed back to China and Hong Kong and Kowloon would have remained British.

Euro's comment that Thatcher gave in to Chinese demands is laughable. Calling her a weak negotiator is like calling Churchill a pacifist. Thatcher was uncompromising when it came to negotiations (The Iron Lady, "The lady is not for turning"). Her strength in negotiations became her weakness. Her refusal to compromise finally led to her downfall.

Good post HHTEL - I agree, though I'm guessing several won't.

[Dannie Boy]

Like her or loathe her, the Iron Lady was formidable and achieved what many others could not have done. Of course the mining community and other British staple industries will never forgive her, but as already mentioned, she was definitely no push over.

[europtimiste]

Euro's comment that Thatcher gave in to Chinese demands is laughable. Calling her a weak negotiator is like calling Churchill a pacifist. Thatcher was uncompromising when it came to negotiations (The Iron Lady, "The lady is not for turning"). Her strength in negotiations became her weakness. Her refusal to compromise finally led to her downfall.

Good post HHTEL - I agree, though I'm guessing several won't.

You miss a point, that's the electoral law of HK, the governor was appointed by the Queen. HK people wanted to elect a local governor, the UK agreed, but Chinese opposed, they wanted to appoint a Beijing puppet. They considered any change in this law would be an unfriendly act and the trade relations between 2 countries would suffer. At this point Thatcher gave up, of course money was more important.

[buksida]

No idea WTF Maggie has to do with China's influence over Thailand - which is what this thread is supposed to be about.