PDA

View Full Version : Hong Kong's "Parliament" stormed by pro-democracy protestors



-:Undertaker:-
01-07-2019, 07:48 PM
Hong Kong's "Parliament" stormed by pro-democracy protestors

Hundreds of thousands continue to protest against an ever more sinister Peking

1145712724623745025

1145729209555288064

Again the British colonial flag of Hong Kong, seen draped over the central chair in the fake Parliament.

The British government should make a unilateral offer, as it should have done pre-1997, of full British citizenship to all former subjects of Hong Kong. Highly educated, westernised, culturally part British - offer them an escape and drain Hong Kong of its talent.

And impose sanctions on the communist ghouls of Peking who are spitting on the treaty we signed with them.

FlyingJesus
02-07-2019, 04:16 PM
You say offer citizenship to the former subjects but it's the youngsters who are protesting

-:Undertaker:-
02-07-2019, 06:36 PM
You say offer citizenship to the former subjects but it's the youngsters who are protesting

Anyone aged 22 years or older in HK lived under British rule.

FlyingJesus
02-07-2019, 07:17 PM
The protests are led by the student unions

-:Undertaker:-
02-07-2019, 11:21 PM
The protests are led by the student unions

I'd offer to those born after the handover too. We owe it to them, as Hong Kong in its entirety should never have been given over.

FlyingJesus
03-07-2019, 05:43 AM
You want to import 7 million people just to piss off China

-:Undertaker:-
03-07-2019, 03:51 PM
You want to import 7 million people just to piss off China

Oh yes that is entirely my reason, nothing of course to do with the fact we shamelessly abandoned these people - our people.

We imported 3.7m EU immigrants who had no loyal or cultural connection to this country. It should have been Hong Kongers, Rhodesians and Afrikanners who were granted British citizenship. As Australia has done with many as they make great farmers in harsh conditions.

And as France did when it left Algeria with the return of the Pied-Noirs to the homeland. As we did with the expelled Ugandan Indians.

-:Undertaker:-
03-07-2019, 04:12 PM
1146440896428335104

Time to hit back.

If I was PM, I would go on television and reel off a list of treaty breaks the Chinese government have committed over the Anglo-Sino Agreement on Hong Kong, and draw comparisons to Tiananman Square which China hates being talked about. Will our weak and spineless politicians do anything?

FlyingJesus
03-07-2019, 05:03 PM
We didn't abandon anyone, we endured the expiry of a 99 year lease on the area which is in itself a pretty horrible way to go about things - a remnant of the old colonial wishes to simply OWN people. They were only "our people" in the possessive, as they weren't British citizens and even after applying to be a British National Overseas all they'd get was a different looking passport which still didn't grant them the right to live and work here. You're labouring under a delusion that the empire was a big happy family of equally well looked after folk who all loved their governors.

As for "they make great farmers in harsh conditions" just wow. Does the shape of their heads also make them docile and receptive to feelings of caution

-:Undertaker:-
03-07-2019, 05:47 PM
We didn't abandon anyone, we endured the expiry of a 99 year lease on the area which is in itself a pretty horrible way to go about things - a remnant of the old colonial wishes to simply OWN people. They were only "our people" in the possessive, as they weren't British citizens and even after applying to be a British National Overseas all they'd get was a different looking passport which still didn't grant them the right to live and work here.

Firstly, the lease only applied to *part* of the territory. The rest, like Gibaltar, as handed over by the Qing Empire in perpeptuity. Secondly, did China respect treaty/history with Tibet, Taiwan and the other numerous territorial disputes it has with India (signed with the British Raj), Vietnam and others when it tries to claim the Himalayas or the South China Sea, an international sea, as its own? The Chinese Communist Party doesn't respect agreements when it comes to any other power.

Finally, those types of passports were only introduced in the 1980s to make it harder for people living in the remaining colonies to head back to the homeland before independence. It was a disgraceful trick which de facto stole people of their right to be (true) subjects of the British Crown. Prior to the 1970s, there was no real distinction between someone residing in the United Kingdom itself and the wider British Empire - all were considered British subjects. The government can change the status of citizenship all it wants, the fact is that the people of Hong Kong were British subjects for a long time and as a democratic country with the rule of law, it was their right to continue to decide whether to exercise that right or to become citizens of a Chinese republic. The fact they were not given a say, and handed over as though we were some defeated power, was and is an outrage.


You're labouring under a delusion that the empire was a big happy family of equally well looked after folk who all loved their governors.

Are you claiming that Hong Kong wanted to be handed over to China...?

If you actually watch the handover ceremony, Governor Patten and Prince Charles were waved off by Hong Kongers with tears.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amjPt8X1JbA


As for "they make great farmers in harsh conditions" just wow. Does the shape of their heads also make them docile and receptive to feelings of caution

You really are ridiculous sometimes. Rhodesian and Afrikanner farmers farm in some of the most inhospitable conditions on the planet, and are very good at it having done it for a couple of hundred years. Australia, Canada, Mozambique, Zambia and now Zimbabwe have all invited the farmers to their countries because the farmers are so damn good at what they do. These people are an asset and are our own. And the same for the people of Hong Kong who are educated, culturally western and loyal.

FlyingJesus
03-07-2019, 08:42 PM
Firstly, the lease only applied to *part* of the territory. The rest, like Gibaltar, as handed over by the Qing Empire in perpeptuity.

So when we GAIN territory you have no qualms with the reasoning or whether the people there wanted it, it only matters when Britain is no longer in charge. Righto.


Secondly, did China respect treaty/history with Tibet, Taiwan and the other numerous territorial disputes it has with India (signed with the British Raj), Vietnam and others when it tries to claim the Himalayas or the South China Sea, an international sea, as its own? The Chinese Communist Party doesn't respect agreements when it comes to any other power.

Ya they're not very nice. Not arguing that, but pretty sure if everyone did that the world table would not be a very stable one, and things are bad enough as it is


Finally, those types of passports were only introduced in the 1980s to make it harder for people living in the remaining colonies to head back to the homeland before independence. It was a disgraceful trick which de facto stole people of their right to be (true) subjects of the British Crown. Prior to the 1970s, there was no real distinction between someone residing in the United Kingdom itself and the wider British Empire - all were considered British subjects.

If you genuinely believe that before the 80s there was free movement and acceptance throughout the colonies then wow. The difference between legal status and actual implementation is enormous


The government can change the status of citizenship all it wants, the fact is that the people of Hong Kong were British subjects for a long time and as a democratic country with the rule of law, it was their right to continue to decide whether to exercise that right or to become citizens of a Chinese republic. The fact they were not given a say, and handed over as though we were some defeated power, was and is an outrage.

Did they get a say when we nicked them in the first place then


Are you claiming that Hong Kong wanted to be handed over to China...?

Nope, otherwise I'd have said that. I assume they'd rather be self ruled


If you actually watch the handover ceremony, Governor Patten and Prince Charles were waved off by Hong Kongers with tears.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amjPt8X1JbA

From the BBC. I don't doubt that a great many people were "loyal" to the empire etc etc but I'm not sure why you keep lumping 7 million people into one persona


You really are ridiculous sometimes. Rhodesian and Afrikanner farmers farm in some of the most inhospitable conditions on the planet, and are very good at it having done it for a couple of hundred years. Australia, Canada, Mozambique, Zambia and now Zimbabwe have all invited the farmers to their countries because the farmers are so damn good at what they do. These people are an asset and are our own. And the same for the people of Hong Kong who are educated, culturally western and loyal.

They're not our own. Historical boundaries are not the same thing as present day, and I can't believe that this actually needs pointing out to you. Then again, maybe I'm wrong and Hail Caesar huh

-:Undertaker:-
03-07-2019, 11:57 PM
So when we GAIN territory you have no qualms with the reasoning or whether the people there wanted it, it only matters when Britain is no longer in charge. Righto.

You know as well as I know that the world is different today under Pax Americana. In the 1800s you had a crumbling Qing Empire as powers moved in to carve it up. We weren't the only power to establish colonies in China - so did the Portuguese, Germans, Americans, French, Japanese, Austria-Hungary and others. In fact, post-imperial China itself is *still* doing this today albeit less obviously in the west of China with huge Han settlements into Tibet and Sinkiang.

It would also be worth pointing out that the Qing Dynasty itself as a Manchu Empire that ruled over a Han-majority China, so it is not as simple to say that we simply marched in against the wishes of the people there. If you look at the development of the British Raj, we made alliances with many of the Princely states against the Mughal Empire. In some senses, it was 'chosen' by certain power players at the time.

That fenced border between Hong Kong and China was and is to keep Chinese out of Hong Kong, not the other way around.


Ya they're not very nice. Not arguing that, but pretty sure if everyone did that the world table would not be a very stable one, and things are bad enough as it is

So we undertook an agreement with China on the future of Hong Kong, they break it and abduct booksellers and you just shrug and say you don't want to cause a scene? Is there anything China will do that would provoke you into believing we should protest it? Another Tiananman Square massacre in the streets of Victoria, Hong Kong?

Our government has no qualms in kicking up a fuss over the status of parts of Ukraine, or the government of Venezuela or the borders of Syria - all of which we had and today have no interest or strategic interest in. If we can kick up a scene over them, we bloody well can with Hong Kong.


If you genuinely believe that before the 80s there was free movement and acceptance throughout the colonies then wow. The difference between legal status and actual implementation is enormous

I did not say free movement, there were distinctions drawn from the time of the Statute of Westminster in the 1930s that began that process but that process didn't really kick in properly until the 1970s and 1980s. It happened, and it was completely wrong for still-loyal colonies.


]Did they get a say when we nicked them in the first place then

There was nothing substantial there before we arrived. A tiny fishing village if I recall correctly, with much of it still underwater. So we built it, and the Chinese came (willingly) and settled in our colony. So yes they did get a say because they chose to flee a disintegrating and war-torn China and settle in a prosperous British colony. How they felt in the mid-1800s anyway I have no idea how that matters, I would have thought how they felt in 1997 and 2019 was more important?


Nope, otherwise I'd have said that. I assume they'd rather be self ruled

That wasn't an option as it wouldn't have survived two minutes without the Royal Navy. The choice was British rule or Chinese rule.

What one do you think, were the given the choice, would they have opted for? It's bleedingly obvious.


From the BBC. I don't doubt that a great many people were "loyal" to the empire etc etc but I'm not sure why you keep lumping 7 million people into one persona

Here's the last Governor of Hong Kong, Lord Patten, recalling a basic point even an insane inmate at an asylum in HK asked.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dcGg934YJU


They're not our own. Historical boundaries are not the same thing as present day, and I can't believe that this actually needs pointing out to you. Then again, maybe I'm wrong and Hail Caesar huh

They're not our own in law or treaty anymore.

But whether those treaties should have been signed is exactly what I am arguing.

FlyingJesus
04-07-2019, 02:10 PM
the world is different today

Literally my whole entire point, thank you. None of the imperialist stuff matters - those of us around today have no responsibility to or blame for whatever's happened - and it's the present day we ought to focus on. They aren't a colony and we don't have a say in what goes on there. Obviously opinions can and should be made, and it's fine to personally oppose what the Chinese are doing (as I do, despite what you seem to think) but actual intervention in the affairs of countries we are not beholden to doesn't go well. See: every time we go into the Middle East

-:Undertaker:-
05-07-2019, 09:27 AM
Literally my whole entire point, thank you. None of the imperialist stuff matters - those of us around today have no responsibility to or blame for whatever's happened - and it's the present day we ought to focus on. They aren't a colony and we don't have a say in what goes on there. Obviously opinions can and should be made, and it's fine to personally oppose what the Chinese are doing (as I do, despite what you seem to think) but actual intervention in the affairs of countries we are not beholden to doesn't go well. See: every time we go into the Middle East

I accept we cannot intervene as we did hand it over, despite handing it over being wrong. But we can and should put pressure on China to abide by the terms of the 50-year agreement on Hong Kong. If not, it is not only worrying for Hong Kong but also for the whole of South East Asia.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!