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.