Britain to allow up to 3 million Hongkongers to move to UK and become citizens

[Mister Six]

What are your thoughts on this?

Following Beijing's decision to fuck off Hong Kong autonomy, Hongkongers with British National (Overseas) passports will be allowed to flee the city for Britain for up to five years, with a path to citizenship.

Seems like an unusually human and decent thing for a Conservative government to do, unless they're just trying to suck up to the US to get discounts on chlorinated chickens, or think that this will translate into 3 million strawberry pickers come next summer. Still, I'm heartened by the move. Although I do worry that it might result in some nasty anti-Chinese racism among the usual cunts.

What do you reckon?

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Human and decent? It's a political stunt by a fascist government with regards to a former British colony that was brutally and immorally seized from China in the nineteenth century and that, contrary to evidently all Western reporting, was formally returned to the Chinese government effective 23 years ago after extensive negotiations that China has consistently complied with in good faith.

The British government has absolutely no business dictating anything about what happens in Hong Kong.

[Ambient Sheep]

...contrary to evidently all Western reporting, was formally returned to the Chinese government effective 23 years ago after extensive negotiations that China has consistently complied with in good faith.

The British government has absolutely no business dictating anything about what happens in Hong Kong.

Not so, according to my understanding...  wasn't there a 50-year agreement that lasts until 2047 that expressly forbade this sort of thing?  Or is that the inaccurate "Western teleporting" you were talking about?


EDIT: For example:

The PM said Tuesday's passing of a new security law by the Hong Kong authorities was a "clear and serious breach" of the 1985 Sino-British joint declaration - a legally binding agreement which set out how certain freedoms would be protected for the 50 years after China assumed sovereignty in 1997.

(From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53246899)

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Not so, according to my understanding...  wasn't there a 50-year agreement that lasts until 2047 that expressly forbade this sort of thing?  Or is that the inaccurate "Western teleporting" you were talking about?

Yes, Hong Kong was agreed to remain a semi-independent "special administrative region" for 50 years, with its own currency, legal system, etc.

But that is still the case, nothing has changed. Not surprisingly, however, the Hong Kong legislators are somewhat influenced by the global superpower that it is surrounded by and culturally intertwined with. The direct impetus for the protests last year was a bill in the Hong Kong legislature that would have allowed easier extradition between Hong Kong and the PRC. It has been portrayed in the West as a battle between Hong Kong and China, though really it is a battle between a subset of the population and the Hong Kong legislature/government.

Meanwhile the latest security law is not inconsistent with the existence of Hong Kong as a "special administrative region" within the PRC.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

EDIT: For example:

(From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-53246899)

The Western media is unfortunately incapable of producing unbiased reporting on China.

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China. It is not an independent country and it is no longer a British colony. Say what you will about the Chinese government (or governments in general), but a security law attempting to crack down on secession or calls for Hong Kong independence is the normal behavior of a sovereign government and is fully consistent with the "one countries, two systems" policy that was agreed upon. It is disingenuous for anyone to pretend otherwise.

[Bernice]

There are some very fine people on both sides.

[Captain Z]

There are some very fine rich people on both their sides.

[BlodwynPig]

3 million?

replenishing the Covid Dead

[Ambient Sheep]

The Western media is unfortunately incapable of producing unbiased reporting on China.

I can believe that.

Hong Kong is a special administrative region of China.

It is.  Did I say it wasn't?

It is not an independent country and it is no longer a British colony.

Correct.

Say what you will about the Chinese government (or governments in general), but a security law attempting to crack down on secession or calls for Hong Kong independence is the normal behavior of a sovereign government and is fully consistent with the "one countries, two systems" policy that was agreed upon.

Really?

Well having read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_country,_two_systems#Background_in_the_context_of_Hong_Kong, which says:

China agreed to accept some conditions, as is stipulated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, such as the drafting and adoption of Hong Kong's "mini-constitution" Basic Law before its return. The Hong Kong Basic Law ensured that Hong Kong will retain its capitalist economic system and own currency (the Hong Kong Dollar), legal system, legislative system, and same human rights and freedoms, as a special administrative region (SAR) of China for 50 years.

^{_{(Emphasis mine.)}}

and then portions of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong_Basic_Law#Autonomy_under_Chinese_sovereignty that appear to confirm that, e.g.,

Hong Kong residents have, among other things, freedom of speech, freedom of the press and of publication; freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of procession, of demonstration, of communication, of movement, of conscience, of religious belief, and of marriage; and the right and freedom to form and join trade unions, and to strike.  The freedom of the person of Hong Kong residents shall be inviolable. No Hong Kong resident can be arbitrarily or unlawfully arrested, detained or imprisoned. Arbitrary or unlawful search of the body of any resident, deprivation or restriction of the freedom of the person are also prohibited. Torture of any resident and arbitrary or unlawful deprivation of the life of any resident shall be prohibited.

In late 2015, five staff members of a bookshop selling books and magazines banned in mainland China disappeared...

I'm somewhat baffled by your stance.


However it seems that China consider the whole document ignorable anyway, given the following passages from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declaration:

Whether the Declaration has practical effect after the transfer of sovereignty of Hong Kong is disputed by China and the UK. China said it is a "historical document that no longer had any practical significance", but the UK says it is a "legally valid treaty to which it was committed to upholding".

China reiterated its belief "that as soon as the handover was complete, [the Declaration] effectively became void [...] it only covered the period from the signing in 1984 until the handover in 1997."

Well isn't that nice?


To he honest, that's almost as far as I want to take this discussion with you, especially given:

It is disingenuous for anyone to pretend otherwise.

which I frankly find offensive.  I'm not being disingenuous in the slightest.  I just want China to abide by the 50-year declaration.  You seem to think they are.  I don't think they are.  Fair enough, I might be wrong, and normally I'm willing to be educated, but calling me disingenuous?  Fuck off with that shit, that's not how you're going to win people round to your views.

One last question though: why are you so keen to defend the PRC on this?


EDIT to add:

It's a political stunt by a fascist government with regards to a former British colony that was brutally and immorally seized from China in the nineteenth century.

Just to say, I don't disagree with this bit.  Although I get Mister Six's point, as it does seem an unusual thing for an anti-immigration Conservative government to do.

[Mr_Simnock]

Well well well the tories are suddenly pro immigration now. Hong Kong has rather a lot of very very wealthy families so it isn't any surprise. The 3 million figure is pure piss, this bunch of cunts will just want the wealthy lot and make sure those who don't have at least a million in the bank can fuck of to the nearest chinese correction center asap.

[earl_sleek]

I reckon the govt thinks its a way they can get a lot of well educated and pro-western immigrants into the UK without pissing off their racist anti-immigration supporters and look like they're standing up to big bad China at the same time.

Whatever their motivations, I don't actually disagree with it.

[Kryton]

I have no problem with this, but Imagine there's a few Chinese former communist spies embedded and involved (and rightly so! -or am I?).

[Mister Six]

a former British colony that was brutally and immorally seized from China in the nineteenth century

What's that got to do with anything?

Yes, Hong Kong was agreed to remain a semi-independent "special administrative region" for 50 years, with its own currency, legal system, etc.

But that is still the case, nothing has changed.

Blimey, didn't realise we had wumao on here.

Something rather substantial has changed, in that Mainland agents are now freely able to operate within the city - without oversight from Hong Kong police - and arrest people from Hong Kong who are deemed to have infringed upon the new laws, which are vaguely defined, and have them shuttled off to the mainland for a secret trial and imprisonment of three years to life. Given Beijing's penchant for kidnapping "subversive elements" and disappearing them, that has understandably chilled the pseudo-democratic processes established as part of the handover, and put everyone at Hong Kong in a state of peril they were not in before.

This is absolutely an infraction of the handover agreement, and a collapse of the "two systems, one country" model. Hong Kong cannot reasonably be said to still have a separate system if Beijing can send in its own agents to circumvent local processes.

As pointed out by Sheepy, the law violates the requirement that Hongkongers be granted "freedom of speech, freedom of the press and of publication; freedom of association, freedom of assembly, freedom of procession, of demonstration, of communication, of movement, of conscience".

Last night the authorities arrested a 15-year-old kid for holding up a "subversive" flag, for fuck's sake.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

which I frankly find offensive.  I'm not being disingenuous in the slightest.  I just want China to abide by the 50-year declaration.  You seem to think they are.  I don't think they are.  Fair enough, I might be wrong, and normally I'm willing to be educated, but calling me disingenuous?  Fuck off with that shit, that's not how you're going to win people round to your views.

I wasn't calling you disingenuous, I was calling the BBC and the British government disingenuous. Hong Kong is Chinese territory. They owe zero obligations to Western finance-imperialists or concern trolls, and the Chinese government has shown remarkable fidelity to maintaining Hong Kong autonomy. Far more than the US or UK ever would have dreamed of.

What's that got to do with anything?

I'll take the British government more seriously on this issue once they pay reparations to the Chinese people.

This is absolutely an infraction of the handover agreement, and a collapse of the "two systems, one country" model. Hong Kong cannot reasonably be said to still have a separate system if Beijing can send in its own agents to circumvent local processes.

They have not imposed the PRC legal system, they have enacted a law that allows them to stamp down on secessionism within their sovereign territory. Far more onerous responses to far less subversive protests are currently being enacted in our beloved United States with virtually no media coverage. I know users on this forum have pro-democratic intentions, but the fact of the matter is that there is a constant, massive, coordinated Western campaign to disingenuously slander and destabilize China that you are inadvertently contributing to.

We should all be more concerned about our own governments before using a double standard to call out China for restricting "human rights" that are plainly not afforded in the US or the UK or any European state. Protestors from recent BLM demonstrations are being slapped with felony indictments and threatened with 75+ year jail sentences.

[Zetetic]

Can always cash them later in for slightly lower lamb and whiskey tariffs or something.

[Zetetic]

Far more onerous responses to far less subversive protests are currently being enacted in our beloved United States with virtually no media coverage.

We should all be more concerned about our own governments before using a double standard to call out China for restricting "human rights" that are plainly not afforded in the US or the UK or any European state. Protestors from recent BLM demonstrations are being slapped with felony indictments and threatened with 75+ year jail sentences.

These things seem quite odd to say on CaB. Not least because quite a few people on here belong to secessionist movements, including political parties of those movements, in the UK.

[chveik]

We should all be more concerned about our own governments before using a double standard to call out China for restricting "human rights" that are plainly not afforded in the US or the UK or any European state. Protestors from recent BLM demonstrations are being slapped with felony indictments and threatened with 75+ year jail sentences.

no shit.  still, we're more than capable to denounce oppression whenever we see it here. you're only arguing with msm stooges in your head.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

These things seem quite odd to say on CaB. Not least because quite a few people on here belong secessionist movements, including political parties of those movements, in the UK.

Remind me, how did the British government respond to secessionist movements in Northern Ireland?

[Zetetic]

Poorly.

Less poorly now, which is the point in the context of "plainly not afforded in the UK". I think this is a good thing.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

no shit.  still, we're more than capable to denounce oppression whenever we see it here. you're only arguing with msm stooges in your head.

Oppression for Western financial interests, the very worst kind!

[bgmnts]

We wont let in starving, dying refugees from countries due to war we are probably partially responsible for but we'll let in some Hong Kongers? Behave.

[chveik]

Oppression for Western financial interests, the very worst kind!

ffs, that's obviously not what I meant.

[dissolute ocelot]

Remind me, how did the British government respond to secessionist movements in Northern Ireland?

Allowed them to stand in elections, even if they were in jail for serious violent crimes. Britain doesn't throw peaceful or even slightly violent campaigners in jail; the US has a ton of secessionist groups in several states and territories such as Puerto Rico. China controls Hong Kong elections and stop "unpatriotic" candidates from standing; the contrast with Bobby Sands MP is obvious.

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Allowed them to stand in elections, even if they were in jail for serious violent crimes. Britain doesn't throw peaceful or even slightly violent campaigners in jail; the US has a ton of secessionist groups in several states and territories such as Puerto Rico. China controls Hong Kong elections and stop "unpatriotic" candidates from standing; the contrast with Bobby Sands MP is obvious.

Which of those novelty nationalist parties is openly backed by a global hegemon that in recent years has initiated an aggressive and belligerent Second Cold War against the UK?

If you actually support legitimate pro-democracy protestors in Hong Kong, the best way to do that would be to vehemently oppose any attempt at interfering by the US or the UK (such as the diplomatically insulting stunt that is the topic of this thread) and to minimize Western opining about things that we do not fully understand.

[Zetetic]

Right, so, to be clear, are we moving the goalposts for the next bit?

I'd be open to the argument that the only reason why the UK tolerates secessionist movements is because it's found that's the best way to diminish them, absent serious external support, but I think I'd find that easier after a retraction of "plainly not afforded" first.

[Sin Agog]

Personally I think it was wrong to harvest organs from people who do yoga.  I know I've never harvested and sold a yoga practitioner's organs before.  Pilates organs I'll wrench out of their still pulsing chests, but never people who do yoga. 

[Pearly-Dewdrops Drops]

Right, so, to be clear, are we moving the goalposts for the next bit?

I'd be open to the argument that the only reason why the UK tolerates secessionist movements is because it's found that's the best way to diminish them, absent serious external support, but I think I'd find that easier after a retraction of "plainly not afforded" first.

The UK plainly does not afford the "right" to violent protests aimed at attacking the sovereignty of the central government, particularly those backed by hostile foreign powers. The UK's police/national security apparatus is as heavy-handed as the US or any other country. Trying to derail the thread by redirecting focus on the UK's novelty secessionist parties is, once again, plainly disingenuous.

[Cloud]

Not arsed.  Suppose we'll need someone to do all the work with all the Europeans being kicked out.

Tories aren't known for being altruistic but would people rather they left them to the Chinese regime?

[idunnosomename]

mmm world war III love it baby

[Zetetic]

violent protests

Is that the focus of the law? Were violent protests previously permitted in Hong Kong? I have to admit we might have dumped a bit too much sort-of-democracy-if-you-squint on them in the final rush if that was the case.