[stub for offtopicness / genericness]
Whenever the British Empire is mentioned, I involuntary have to think of this German slogan from WW1. The only military memorabilia I own carries this slogan. I came across the slogan in a meme featuring Donald Duck and found the vignette on a flea market.
As for the Chagos islands, it's by far the best thing to get rid of them. There's no value at all and a lot of trouble keeping them.
I heard a Hong Kong national argue that that the end of the agreement should have seen Hong Kong go back to Taiwan, not China, because the initial agreement wasn’t made with the CCP and the Taiwanese government is closer to being the natural successor.
I can only begin to imagine the shit storm this would have caused.
In a similar vein, Russia should never have got USSR's UN security council seat.
Now that's an interesting counterfactual. The legal case was weak, and certainly they didn't have to on account of Russia's strength. Other than nukes, which a few non-SC members have, a lot of mostly empty land area and a space programme, Russia's credentials as a superpower aren't great when it's not the same country as Ukraine and central Asia and doesn't also hold sway over Warsaw Pact countries. Not sure China necessarily saw them as a friendly counterweight to the West then either. On the other hand, they had the other CIS states all insisting Russia was the true continuation of the USSR, no objections and they probably thought that it would help Russia become friends. Does the world look vastly different if Russia goes through an application process to rejoin the UN and doesn't get a seat on the Security Council? Perhaps not, but I'm sure Mearsheimer et al would explain that every act of violence Russia undertook afterwards was a natural response to it...
China is currently the largest or 2nd largest buyer of UK Pork.
Although I won't be surprised in 2-3 years time China will use it as leverage. As they did with Denmark.
And it is not that China wants any of these either. UK is currently desperately trying to increase its export ( without success )
If the UK had stuck with Truss, that mightn’t have been true. She was opening up new pork markets.
> Last time I checked, most countries today, aside from Russia, aren't in the business of invading other countries and expanding territory
How about Israel that the UK is arming? Though in the case of the UK it is contracting.
> The UK will be just fine - it's doing as much as any other western country to keep it's relevance.
That's reassuring.
Do you mean:
a) agency
b) influence
c) something else?
Is the idea that Chagossian repatriation now becomes a Mauritian problem? Had the British been taking that problem particularly seriously?
Or more to do with the British not really wanting to be caught between the Americans and increasingly assertive regional powers who may be annoyed by the Americans’ stronghold there?
Again the chagos islands, I know very little about them, but I understand that the islanders themselves hate the deal. And the UK is offering a whole lot of money to keep the military bases they had for free. You can say it was a matter of international law but Mauritius claim to the island is laughable, they are more than 1000 miles away. Also the way the deal was presented as a step away from colonialism etc just feels wrong. Timid apologetics isn't a good way to advance the UKs interest, nor is it helpful for the rest of the world for the UK to be weak and ineffective. Just look at how they helped Ukraine. Again the politicians have no will or national pride to stand up for the UKs interests and it's a shame.
Do we know that? Presumably there were negotiations. Normally both parties in a negotiation start at extreme opposites and make their way somewhere in the middle. Obviously we don’t/won’t know every detail but I don’t know you can say they didn’t try. Simple reality is that the UK wasn’t holding a lot of cards in that negotiation.
This reminds me of an interview with the CCP spokesperson from last year when asked about how China sees the UK (timestamped): https://youtu.be/8jZ0KTRUgpU?t=240
They mostly don’t have a seat because they don’t actually want one - and China would get nervous. it pays better and is more stable for them to be the outsider.
You mean follow the treaty they signed ages ago?
Whether that would have protected the people of Hong Kong is another matter. I think at the time people were still optimistic about the direction China was taking and they might have thought China would be a democracy by 2047.
It’s honestly amazing that China didn’t apply more ‘direct’ pressure to get HK bad sooner. There is nothing the UK likely would have done about it. Bad for business I guess? Macau transferred over around the same time.
The Qing dynasty ‘remnants’ in Taiwan would have just been steamrolled if they’d gone anywhere near it. And not like there was any real cultural reason why HK’ers would accept them anyway, or that the Qing were well loved. CCP steamrolled them in mainland China like they did because they were, by all accounts, terrible.
Sometimes, life just sucks.
Oh no, I definitely don't think that.
>It’s honestly amazing that China didn’t apply more ‘direct’ pressure to get HK bad sooner. There is nothing the UK likely would have done about it. Bad for business I guess? Macau transferred over around the same time.
The 80-90's were a bit too early to take such a risk I think, now they wouldn't take such a deal. The British likely got the best deal they could get.
>The Qing dynasty ‘remnants’ in Taiwan would have just been steamrolled if they’d gone anywhere near it. And not like there was any real cultural reason why HK’ers would accept them anyway, or that the Qing were well loved. CCP steamrolled them in mainland China like they did because they were, by all accounts, terrible.
The Republic of China government is no more (or less) a Qing dynasty remnant than the CCP is. They were indeed terrible, but that's a long time a go, most people involved are dead by now and the country has changed a lot. The CCP on the other hand is going back to the Mao era.
The civil war took two decades, in which the Kuomintang nearly defeated the Communists and had to fight off the Japanese while the Communists got bankrolled by the Soviets. I'd hardly call that steamrolled.
As to how they think that has anything to do with their points, it doesn’t of course - and the UK agreed, which is why they left. Also, because it’s not like the UK had any other choice.
The argument that it shouldn’t have gone to the CCP was one I heard from someone who lived there.
Taiwan is democratic today, because of transitional justice, but at the time when the PRC succeeded the ROC in China, the nationalists led by Chiang were as dictatorial as you can get
Or that it’s ever been about ‘protecting’ anyone when the British Crown fights anyone over territory? As compared to asserting ownership?
Not to mention the UK nearly lost it’s fight with Argentina - it wouldn’t even be pissing in the wind to go to war with China over Hong Kong.
They lost 6 ships (including 2 destroyers and 2 frigates), 24 helicopters, and 10 fighters + 255 KIA in the debacle. If the french hadn’t disabled those missiles, it would have been an even bigger mess. Do you think the UK gov’t wants to admit they got saved by the French?
If Argentina had their act even a little more together, or had even a little more commitment, there is nothing the UK could have done about it - except maybe nuke Buenos Aires. Which would probably have been a step too far, even for Thatcher.
Argentina was expecting zero resistance and got embarrassed they lost ships and soldiers too, and pulled out because it was making the Argentinian gov’t look bad.
But it was also really embarrassing for the UK. They had more losses there than they did fighting the Gulf War alongside the US.
In fact, since Northern Ireland, it took Afghanistan to even come close - and that was over a period of 10 years compared to ~ 6 months. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6605529d91a32...]
I think the people that lived there in 1997 would absolutely want to go back to British rule. But you have to remember that it's been nearly 30 years since it went to Chinese rule. All the young people there prefer Chinese rule, because they grew up with schools teaching them that the British were bad and the Chinese were good.
And at the same time, the most pro-British people left, either going to the USA or Canada, or actually taking advantage of the UKs right-to-return programs and going to the UK itself.
So if you asked the people who lived there today, they majority say they prefer Chinese rule.
My prediction is that they will no longer operate as an SEZ within the decade and will be folded fully into China.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/28/i-was-so-naive...
But more importantly, it's more complicated than just China good/bad:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/05/how-peopl...
However what that shows is that the majority of adults in HK (74%) feel an attachment to China, and in the meantime China is making it illegal to disagree with them.
You make me feel old
>In June 2019, millions took to the streets again in massive pro-democracy protests.
This was only 6 years ago.
>Hong Kongers ages 35 and older are more likely than their younger counterparts to feel very close to China.
That's the exact opposite of what you claim.
I agree they'll likely succeed in the end but they have not yet made HK just another part of China.
I watched the changeover live on TV in my 20s. :)
>> Hong Kongers ages 35 and older are more likely than their younger counterparts to feel very close to China.
> That's the exact opposite of what you claim.
No, it's not. What I said was young people have been growing up with propaganda, and of the people who were there for the changeover and remember it (people over 35), the ones who don't like China have left the country because they could. The ones under 35 (well technically 28) don't have that option, because you had to be born before the changeover to get the British citizenship, which is what lets you easily move to Canada, Australia, and lots of other places.
Which would mean that those over 35 that are still there are the ones that were already pro-China. So that tracks with the data.
In other words, China is indoctrinating the youth and the people who have to option to leave and hate China are leaving, so only the people that love China or were indoctrinated by it are left behind.
But even then, less than 50% of people under 35 call themselves Chinese (not even both Hong Konger and Chinese). And half of the adults call China a major threat, 22% a minor threat. Those are pretty bad numbers for indoctrination.
If they really really wanted too, they could have tried to go the USA route and kick both parties out and be independent. But there is approximately zero chance they would have succeeded, eh?
Look at the one month Treasury bill to see the actual situation.
Maybe 20 years from now, you will be on a resort laughing at the treasury bill rates of 2025 and compare their accuracy to pets.com.
Rising rates at long maturities is a signal of uncertainty. The market is wanting shorter maturities. So stop issuing the long stuff the market doesn’t want and issue the shorter stuff it does want. Even to the point of leaving all of it on overnight until the dust settles
These journalists do not say that Britain is bankrupt. Their article was arbitrarily cited by someone else to support his claim about Britain.
History doesn't repeat, but I think we're well into the realm of history rhyming here.
You can't be serious.