Why was it important to keep the Falklands?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Reue
No, it was mainly because out territory was being invaded. Any prime minister should have reacted in the same way.
but she could have let them go, the British were starting to withdraw from the Falklands anyway like the removal of the naval ships and they werent that significant only for the fact it was a good way to boost popularity in the polls
and it certainly lifted the 'feel good factor' afterwards which was what one of the aims were
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Wrong.
1. The lease was on the New Territories, not the rest of Hong Kong.
2. The People's Republic of China has no legal claim to Hong Kong, as Republic of China (Taiwan) is Qing's (signatory) successor state, and the Republic of China still exists (and indeed Taiwan still claims to own all of China, Hong Kong, Macau, and most of Mongolia and other territories).
3. Ever if you consider PRC to be the successor to RoC, PRC still has no claim. PRC, officially, does not recognize any of those treaties; RoC, on the other hand, does.
So to say the handover was done due to a contractual obligation is like saying the UK was obliged to act on a treaty that wasn't signed or recognized by the other party. Chances are that, without Thatcher's insistence to talk about Hong Kong beyond 1997, China would likely have chosen to not say anything, at least not in the 80s. Once the UK raised the question, the circumstances forced China to not back down in the same way the Argentines left the UK no choice but to go to war for the Falklands.
1. The lease was on the New Territories, not the rest of Hong Kong.
2. The People's Republic of China has no legal claim to Hong Kong, as Republic of China (Taiwan) is Qing's (signatory) successor state, and the Republic of China still exists (and indeed Taiwan still claims to own all of China, Hong Kong, Macau, and most of Mongolia and other territories).
3. Ever if you consider PRC to be the successor to RoC, PRC still has no claim. PRC, officially, does not recognize any of those treaties; RoC, on the other hand, does.
So to say the handover was done due to a contractual obligation is like saying the UK was obliged to act on a treaty that wasn't signed or recognized by the other party. Chances are that, without Thatcher's insistence to talk about Hong Kong beyond 1997, China would likely have chosen to not say anything, at least not in the 80s. Once the UK raised the question, the circumstances forced China to not back down in the same way the Argentines left the UK no choice but to go to war for the Falklands.
One China Policy
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Total nonsense.
Apart from the fact that they simply wanted to side with Argentina, there are many many many British, Dutch, French, and indeed American islands all around South America. This is without mentioning the fact that the US installed a government in Chile, was still practically controlling Panamá, and South America as a whole is not a threat.
Apart from the fact that they simply wanted to side with Argentina, there are many many many British, Dutch, French, and indeed American islands all around South America. This is without mentioning the fact that the US installed a government in Chile, was still practically controlling Panamá, and South America as a whole is not a threat.
ok ty for educating me
Original post by CoolCavy
but she could have let them go, the British were starting to withdraw from the Falklands anyway like the removal of the naval ships and they werent that significant only for the fact it was a good way to boost popularity in the polls
and it certainly lifted the 'feel good factor' afterwards which was what one of the aims were
and it certainly lifted the 'feel good factor' afterwards which was what one of the aims were
Absolutely could have let them go, however our people were asking for protection and the British military provided that protection. Imagine if we had have just given up.. what message would that have given to all of our citizens across the world in the other overseas territories?
Original post by Palmyra
One China Policy
Did you miss the part where I said even when the UK considered PRC to have succeeded RoC, it still didn't work legally since PRC officially did not recognize any of those treaties?
This meant there was no treaty on even just the New Territories, let alone all of Hong Kong.
Let's say you and I had a contract for me to lend you £100 for 10 days. The next day I refused to recognize the contract and said it didn't exist. What's going to happen would be either you don't give me the money or give it back to whenever you like - there would be no obligation for you to give it back to me in 9 days.
Original post by Reue
Absolutely could have let them go, however our people were asking for protection and the British military provided that protection. Imagine if we had have just given up.. what message would that have given to all of our citizens across the world in the other overseas territories?
exactly, she was going with what was popular and what the British public and media could have got behind in order to boost her popularity and make it look like Britain wasn't in imperial decline after all the stuff with the withdrawal East of Suez under previous governments and the loss of India earlier than that
Original post by CoolCavy
exactly, she was going with what was popular and what the British public and media could have got behind in order to boost her popularity and make it look like Britain wasn't in imperial decline after all the stuff with the withdrawal East of Suez under previous governments and the loss of India earlier than that
What is the purpose of a government if not to act in the interest of its people? It should never be a criticism that the government does something because the people want it. That is after all what we elect them for.
It seems like you're trying to say this was unique to the Thatcher government when instead I would expect any government to act in the same way.
Original post by Reue
What is the purpose of a government if not to act in the interest of its people? It should never be a criticism that the government does something because the people want it. That is after all what we elect them for.
It seems like you're trying to say this was unique to the Thatcher government when instead I would expect any government to act in the same way.
It seems like you're trying to say this was unique to the Thatcher government when instead I would expect any government to act in the same way.
true but i never criticised it i merely stated that that is what her primary aim was, as is the primary aim of any primeminister - reelection
and that is an interesting point, idk if i would expect any government to have acted in the same way, after all she was a pretty unique prime minister but that is quite thought provoking none theless
Original post by Little Toy Gun
Wrong.
1. The lease was on the New Territories, not the rest of Hong Kong.
2. The People's Republic of China has no legal claim to Hong Kong, as Republic of China (Taiwan) is Qing's (signatory) successor state, and the Republic of China still exists (and indeed Taiwan still claims to own all of China, Hong Kong, Macau, and most of Mongolia and other territories).
3. Ever if you consider PRC to be the successor to RoC, PRC still has no claim. PRC, officially, does not recognize any of those treaties; RoC, on the other hand, does.
So to say the handover was done due to a contractual obligation is like saying the UK was obliged to act on a treaty that wasn't signed or recognized by the other party. Chances are that, without Thatcher's insistence to talk about Hong Kong beyond 1997, China would likely have chosen to not say anything, at least not in the 80s. Once the UK raised the question, the circumstances forced China to not back down in the same way the Argentines left the UK no choice but to go to war for the Falklands.
1. The lease was on the New Territories, not the rest of Hong Kong.
2. The People's Republic of China has no legal claim to Hong Kong, as Republic of China (Taiwan) is Qing's (signatory) successor state, and the Republic of China still exists (and indeed Taiwan still claims to own all of China, Hong Kong, Macau, and most of Mongolia and other territories).
3. Ever if you consider PRC to be the successor to RoC, PRC still has no claim. PRC, officially, does not recognize any of those treaties; RoC, on the other hand, does.
So to say the handover was done due to a contractual obligation is like saying the UK was obliged to act on a treaty that wasn't signed or recognized by the other party. Chances are that, without Thatcher's insistence to talk about Hong Kong beyond 1997, China would likely have chosen to not say anything, at least not in the 80s. Once the UK raised the question, the circumstances forced China to not back down in the same way the Argentines left the UK no choice but to go to war for the Falklands.
So what, you wanted to be returned to Taiwan?
There were some obvious arrangements to make considering the numerous changes in the area in a century, but the spirit of the treaty (that the UK shall return HK to China after a century) had to be respected. The technicalities you mention did not matter.
Original post by Josb
So what, you wanted to be returned to Taiwan?
There were some obvious arrangements to make considering the numerous changes in the area in a century, but the spirit of the treaty (that the UK shall return HK to China after a century) had to be respected. The technicalities you mention did not matter.
There were some obvious arrangements to make considering the numerous changes in the area in a century, but the spirit of the treaty (that the UK shall return HK to China after a century) had to be respected. The technicalities you mention did not matter.
i simply provided an example of a British territory that was given away without a referendum, and later to tell the two of you there was indeed not a treaty to keep. This is not about where Hong Kong should or should not go, or what I want.
And these are not technicalities - China could not ask for Hong Kong in 1997 citing the treaty, because according to them it did not get signed (they could, of course, ask for Hong Kong at any given time, although they'd have no legal reasons to do so, especially when they were established long after the start of colonial rule in Hong Kong). It was all UK's initiative - UK thought China would let them continue their colonial rule. But really there's no legal obligation for the UK to do it, the One China Policy means Taiwan doesn't exist so all signatories have died and there's no owner but the UK.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
i simply provided an example of a British territory that was given away without a referendum, and later to tell the two of you there was indeed not a treaty to keep. This is not about where Hong Kong should or should not go, or what I want.
And these are not technicalities - China could not ask for Hong Kong in 1997 citing the treaty, because according to them it did not get signed (they could, of course, ask for Hong Kong at any given time, although they'd have no legal reasons to do so, especially when they were established long after the start of colonial rule in Hong Kong). It was all UK's initiative - UK thought China would let them continue their colonial rule. But really there's no legal obligation for the UK to do it, the One China Policy means Taiwan doesn't exist so all signatories have died and there's no owner but the UK.
And these are not technicalities - China could not ask for Hong Kong in 1997 citing the treaty, because according to them it did not get signed (they could, of course, ask for Hong Kong at any given time, although they'd have no legal reasons to do so, especially when they were established long after the start of colonial rule in Hong Kong). It was all UK's initiative - UK thought China would let them continue their colonial rule. But really there's no legal obligation for the UK to do it, the One China Policy means Taiwan doesn't exist so all signatories have died and there's no owner but the UK.
You think the UK could have kept Hong Kong? Even if they were legally entitled to do so, it wouldn't have ended well with China. Hence why the UK took the initiative to negotiate an arrangement of the treaty with them. In a way, the fact that China waited until 1997 can be seen as a tacit approval of the treaty. I do not see how it could have been done differently.
Original post by Palmyra
Didn't the UK only ever have a lease on HK, not full legal ownership?
That's correct
Posted from TSR Mobile
Despite protests to the contrary, Argentina has never owned the Falklands Islands. It would have set an awful precedent if the UK had just gave them up in 1982. As long as the people of the Falklands Islands want to be British then the UK has a duty to defend them.
Original post by Josb
You think the UK could have kept Hong Kong? Even if they were legally entitled to do so, it wouldn't have ended well with China. Hence why the UK took the initiative to negotiate an arrangement of the treaty with them. In a way, the fact that China waited until 1997 can be seen as a tacit approval of the treaty. I do not see how it could have been done differently.
Of course China was in reality recognizing it. Everything that has to do with China, Hong Kong, Macau, and Taiwan today are all about unofficially recognizing what they cannot officially recognize (such as China insisting Hong Kong as a Chinese city by calling HK a "special administrative region" and giving HKers a permit that works exactly the same as a visa but not calling it a visa and putting flights to HK and Macau and Taiwan with all other international ones but naming them and letting HK has its own constitution but not calling it a constitution. But that's not the point.
The point was that if the UK didn't raise the question, China would not be able to ask for it to be returned in 1997. They would be asking for whenever they were ready.
The UK could have kept Hong Kong, yes. Unlikely but yes. And definitely beyond 1997. What's likely to happen would be UK kept it, China said nothing until after 2000 when it became a superpower, UK either at that point gave it to China or gave HKers a referendum. And the referendum would probs go in favour of the Chinese.
But none of these is relevant.
The fact is simple: there was no treaty obliging the UK to give HK to China. HK was a British territory that was given away without a referendum and thus totally qualifies as an example in my original response.
Original post by paul514
That's incorrect as I've explained.
1. The lease was on New Territories, not all of Hong Kong.
2. PRC does not recognize the treaty. Either HK would go to Taiwan, or HK goes nowhere because PRC legally succeeded RoC and UK doesn't recognize RoC. This means the other party has "died" and so legal ownership was entirely UK's or the with the people of Hong Kong.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
That's incorrect as I've explained.
1. The lease was on New Territories, not all of Hong Kong.
2. PRC does not recognize the treaty. Either HK would go to Taiwan, or HK goes nowhere because PRC legally succeeded RoC and UK doesn't recognize RoC. This means the other party has "died" and so legal ownership was entirely UK's or the with the people of Hong Kong.
1. The lease was on New Territories, not all of Hong Kong.
2. PRC does not recognize the treaty. Either HK would go to Taiwan, or HK goes nowhere because PRC legally succeeded RoC and UK doesn't recognize RoC. This means the other party has "died" and so legal ownership was entirely UK's or the with the people of Hong Kong.
Like a previous poster said it's technicalities we were honouring the spirit of the deal.
Technicalities aren't a reason for war
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by paul514
Like a previous poster said it's technicalities we were honouring the spirit of the deal.
Technicalities aren't a reason for war
Posted from TSR Mobile
Technicalities aren't a reason for war
Posted from TSR Mobile
China never threatened to go to war over Hong Kong.
There was no deal to honour. The fact that it was a suitable example: It was a British territory the UK gave away without giving the people a referendum. The fact that there was a treaty concerning a part of that territory with no "surviving owner" did not disqualify it from being an example.
And then the discussion was on whether the UK had "full legal ownership". When you're talking about legal matters, why would you talk about anything but technicalities?
You can't have it both ways.
Interesting quote on the topic of HK;
During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon", to which she replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like". -1982.
During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon", to which she replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like". -1982.
Original post by Little Toy Gun
China never threatened to go to war over Hong Kong.
There was no deal to honour. The fact that it was a suitable example: It was a British territory the UK gave away without giving the people a referendum. The fact that there was a treaty concerning a part of that territory with no "surviving owner" did not disqualify it from being an example.
And then the discussion was on whether the UK had "full legal ownership". When you're talking about legal matters, why would you talk about anything but technicalities?
You can't have it both ways.
There was no deal to honour. The fact that it was a suitable example: It was a British territory the UK gave away without giving the people a referendum. The fact that there was a treaty concerning a part of that territory with no "surviving owner" did not disqualify it from being an example.
And then the discussion was on whether the UK had "full legal ownership". When you're talking about legal matters, why would you talk about anything but technicalities?
You can't have it both ways.
They did threaten that as the post that follows yours says.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Das Kapital
Interesting quote on the topic of HK;
During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon", to which she replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like". -1982.
During talks with Thatcher, China planned to invade and seize Hong Kong if the negotiations set off unrest in the colony. Thatcher later said that Deng told her bluntly that China could easily take Hong Kong by force, stating that "I could walk in and take the whole lot this afternoon", to which she replied that "there is nothing I could do to stop you, but the eyes of the world would now know what China is like". -1982.
But that was during the negotiation, which the UK initiated. The only time China thought of taking Hong Kong by force was after WWII when RoC forces could've gotten to Hong Kong first to accept Japanese surrender.
The fact of the matter is, China didn't ask for Hong Kong before the UK approached them on the matter. Chairman Mao openly stated that it's not for his generation. Deng "threatening" war at that point, as I've said, was exactly the same reason why the UK went to war over the Falklands.
Also, once again it's totally irrelevant. Someone asked for an example of a British territory that was given away without a referendum, and I gave Hong Kong as the example. Then some people said it didn't count because there was a treaty, and I pointed out the fact that the UK did have full legal ownership at that point. Somehow then people started saying all these other irrelevant stuff, some with the idea that the argument on full legal ownership isn't about technicalities.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Can I continue to drive with my Indian license after provisional license?
- what is this a sign of?
- do you shave your anus?
- Why was the Privy council important in Elizabethan England?
- what should i do?
- No results (gym)
- Tips for motivation.
- Do dry texters know they are dry texters
- love vs attachment?
- Any tips, tricks or recommendations before doing a PhD degree ?
- Bunking Modules.
- steering to the left when doing a parallel park
- interview help
- Politics essay analysis
- Got an interview for mpharm and am stressing 😭😭
- LNAT preparation
- What does it mean girlfriend tuning Facebook active status off
- Hi, would anyone please be able to give me feedback on my practice LNAT essay?
- Deleted
- OCR PAG help???
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
