Posted on 03/26/2021 1:14:48 AM PDT by nickcarraway
Britain told Hong Kong on Friday (Mar 26) that it had "no right" to order other countries not to accept a United Kingdom travel document for a popular youth working scheme after the city confirmed it had made the request to several other nations.
The row is the latest diplomatic spat centring on the British National (Overseas), or BNO, passport as China imposes a sweeping crackdown on dissent in Hong Kong.
HONG KONG: Britain told Hong Kong on Friday (Mar 26) that it had "no right" to order other countries not to accept a United Kingdom travel document for a popular youth working scheme after the city confirmed it had made the request to several other nations.
The row is the latest diplomatic spat centring on the British National (Overseas), or BNO, passport as China imposes a sweeping crackdown on dissent in Hong Kong.
The BNO passport is a legacy of Hong Kong's handover to China by colonial Britain in 1997. Until recently, it allowed Hong Kongers born before 1997 greater travel privileges to the UK but no working or settling rights.
(Excerpt) Read more at channelnewsasia.com ...
Spineless UK podgers had no right to “give” Hong Kong to Communust China.
Other than the “lease” they didn’t get renewed that expired in 1997? They kind of did have to unless they wanted to hold it by military force.
https://www.thoughtco.com/china-lease-hong-kong-to-britain-195153
You don’t believe in contracts? Neither did Fidel Castro.
“You don’t believe in contracts? Neither did Fidel Castro.”
Nonsensical comment.
You’re an idiot because you talk when knowing or understanding nothing.
Why do you open your mouth when you know nothing?
Moron.
I am not patient with Communust propaganda being spewed out of utter ignorance.
So, what were the British supposed to do when the lease ended? Hm?
Except the deal struck 150 years ago you mean.
Makes perfect sense. You just don’t like the result.
“So, what were the British supposed to do when the lease ended? Hm?”
Stop with the ChiCom propaganda.
There was no lease of Hong Kong. No lease of Kowloon. New Territories lease was with a non-existent imperial dynasty. The Joint Declaration did not mention or cite the New Territories lease as a reason for the treaty.
UK could have done anything they wanted.
They chose to consign 6 million people to be subject to rule by a one Party Communust dictatorship. Anyone who thinks a kingdom has a right to force millions of their subjects to be subject to the authority of a despotic Communist regime can only be communist themselves.
Steal it and have a war, apparently.
“Makes perfect sense. You just don’t like the result.”
But you like it.
Sick.
No, I just understand contracts and always pay my debts.
You must be a deadbeat.
Or a Muslim who thinks a contract is nothing.
You are clearly smoking something. The lease agreement still exists - both the Chinese and the British still have copies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_for_the_Extension_of_Hong_Kong_Territory
Evidently.
China says, “You and what Army?”
Apart from the abrogation of an international treaty there was a more practical problem. By 1991 70% of the freshwater supply for Hong Kong Kowloon and the New Territories came from mainland China. All the mainland Chinese had to do is turn off the spigot and Hong Kong would no longer be able to function, and that's even with using seawater for toilet flushing.
“You are clearly smoking something. The lease agreement still exists - both the Chinese and the British still have copies.”
The PRC do not have copies of the lease.
Another overt lie on your part and inane attempt at documentation of your lie.
You are wumao.
“Or a Muslim who thinks a contract is nothing”
Explain what contract you’re referring to.
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.