Posted on 05/28/2020 1:52:53 PM PDT by ifinnegan
was that the whole of Hong Kong?
92%. Enough to make it so both parties agreed the whole thing needed to be treated under the same set of rules.
“92%. Enough to make it so both parties agreed the whole thing needed to be treated under the same set of rules.”
Provide documentation in any legal document citing the end of the lease of one part of Hong Kong as the basis for the transfer.
I already did. And you know. Man up, admit you’re wrong. Or provide evidence to the contrary.
“I already did. And you know. Man up, admit you’re wrong. Or provide evidence to the contrary.”
No you didn’t n
What is the legal document? I’ll answer to save time.
It’s the Joint Declaration, an international treaty between UK and PRC registered in the UN.
It does not mention the lease of New Territories.
Why not?
I provided enough information for a reasonable person. You’re the one accusing me of lying PROVIDE EVIDENCE.
It doesn’t need to mention the lease. The only reason the agreement happened was because the lease was expiring, neither China nor the UK had any interest in renewing the lease. And both sides understood that the UK keeping 8% was a silly idea. So it got handed over. The treaty was a show, everybody knows it. Even you. Which is why you throw insults and no facts.
“It doesn’t need to mention the lease.”
But you said it was because of the lease.
Now you’re down to arguing “because I say so”.
Who holds the lease?
Just because it’s not mentioned doesn’t mean that’s not the cause. Both sides understood that keeping UK control of the 8% of Hong Kong not covered by the lease would be stupid. So they made the treaty for a graceful exit. Even if they hadn’t made a treaty the area would have been handed over though. No I’m holding to the argument of understanding what happened. Meanwhile you’re not holding any argument at all. You called me a liar, you present NO facts that contradict me. Apologize or $#%% off.
“Just because it’s not mentioned doesn’t mean that’s not the cause”
Lol.
The cause mentioned in the treaty.
1. The Government of the People’s Republic of China declares [...] it has decided to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997.
https://www.cmab.gov.hk/en/issues/jd2.htm
It’s not the lease. They held since the day of their founding that Hong Kong was theirs and they decided to resume exercising their right.
The ChiComs do not even acknowledge the legitimacy of the lease or the two treaties that ceded Hong Kong and Kowloon to the UK in perpetuity.
They did not base their signing the agreement on the lease in any way.
They don’t even hold the lease.
You simply said things that are false. If you were ignorant and believed it in error that is not lying.
Of course it was the lease. You’re saying it was just a coincidence that the treaty went into effect the day after the lease expired?! Really?!
Nobody hold the lease, it ENDED. It’s now a matter of history.
I said nothing false. Hong Kong went to China because the lease ended. You’re worshiping a pointless quibble. The 8% that wasn’t covered in the lease would NEVER have been returned to China if the lease didn’t end. And you know it. You’re the liar hear.
“course it was the lease. You’re saying it was just a coincidence that the treaty went into effect the day after the lease expired?! Really?!”
No. It was chosen because of that lease to be symbolic and the ChiComs knew it would give people like you the wrong impression.
It worked well.
UK thought they were being polite in bringing up renewing the lease and it would be good PR. Deep staters at work with their stupid ideas.
UK was under no legal obligation to renew the lease. ChiComs certainly did not say they needed to renew the lease.
UK deep state establishment thought it would be a PR ceremony and Chicoms would go right along with it. UK and China. Partners and friends.
Thatcher got so flustered that she fell on her face immediately after leaving the meeting where Deng said he’d starve Hong Kong out if they didn’t hand it over.
Do you think the treaty would have happened if the least wasn’t expiring? Would the UK have given up that 8% if they weren’t already going to lose the 92%
Of course you don’t. Therefore IT WAS BECAUSE OF THE LEASE. So stop being a liar.
“Do you think the treaty would have happened if the least wasn’t expiring?”
That’s debatable.
But it’s a far cry from what you initially asserted and what I responded to:
“The lease expired. Without going to war there was nothing UK could do.”
It’s not debatable!! There’s no reason at all to give up the 8% if they’re not losing the 92%. It’s RIGHT in line with what I said. China made it clear the lease would NOT be renewed period. Both sides understood that splitting the parts was a stupid idea. They made a treaty and gave up the land. Because they had NO OTHER OPTION. Only way the UK was keeping it was going to war. They knew that. China knew that. And if you weren’t a damned liar you’d know that. We’re done, you’re a liar and an idiot. have the last word, it won’t be read.
Why did China even sign a treaty? Landlords don’t need to negotiate an agreement when the lease is up.
You’ve never answered who held the lease?
maybe usa under trump willing to take some meaningless actions.
us deep state and business will see to it that nothing happens.
Not doing anything about it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.