Should the UK interfere in Hong Kong?

Watch
Gillzy
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#1
Do You think the UK has the right to interfere in Hong Kongs diplomacy?
0
reply
Vapordave
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#2
Report 3 weeks ago
#2
Of course. In fact we have the most reason to interfere because China is violating the Sino-British Declaration.
2
reply
Mojmeer
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 3 weeks ago
#3
Not much can be done anyway.
0
reply
Gillzy
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 3 weeks ago
#4
(Original post by Daveological)
Of course. In fact we have the most reason to interfere because China is violating the Sino-British Declaration.
Agreed. Do you think that based on the warning the chinese embassy gave out, we would be at war with china if we did interfere?
0
reply
Vapordave
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 16
Rep:
?
#5
Report 3 weeks ago
#5
(Original post by Gillzy)
Agreed. Do you think that based on the warning the chinese embassy gave out, we would be at war with china if we did interfere?
No, because Article 5 will immediately be invoked and the rest of NATO, including the USA, will join in.
1
reply
ChrisW99
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#6
Report 3 weeks ago
#6
(Original post by Gillzy)
Agreed. Do you think that based on the warning the chinese embassy gave out, we would be at war with china if we did interfere?
Britain will be joining the cold war between China and America. Not much Britain can do regarding Hong Kong but kicking Huawei out of 5G development would be a start.
4
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#7
Report 3 weeks ago
#7
Yes and no, if you'll pardon the expression.
On the one hand it is clearly interfering in the sovereign affairs of another state (which is supposedly naughty according to our own government) on the other we have a moral stake in this, being the former colonial overlords of the island. Which one is more important naturally varies on your own opinion.

The fact of the matter is there is absolutely nothing the UK can do about it that would be of any consequence to Beijing, not a dickybird. The asymmetry in power and investment in the cause is little more than a yawning chasm. Hence why all that's been floated is a token gesture.
0
reply
Ambitious1999
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 3 weeks ago
#8
(Original post by Gillzy)
Do You think the UK has the right to interfere in Hong Kongs diplomacy?
I welcome the any Hong Kong citizens who want to come to the UK but isn’t that playing into the hands of the Chinese government?
They could tell all Hong Kong citizens to leave allowing the Chinese to re populate the entire former colony with people loyal to Beijing from mainland China. There’s a lot of over crowded cities in China and if all the Hong Kong citizens leave then China gains the colony to run it how they like.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 3 weeks ago
#9
(Original post by Napp)
Yes and no, if you'll pardon the expression.
On the one hand it is clearly interfering in the sovereign affairs of another state (which is supposedly naughty according to our own government) on the other we have a moral stake in this, being the former colonial overlords of the island.
The sovereign affairs of a state aren't really the matter at issue when you have a treaty being violated. Whether PR China likes it or not, they signed up to these restrictions on their sovereignty over Hong Kong.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#10
Report 3 weeks ago
#10
(Original post by L i b)
The sovereign affairs of a state aren't really the matter at issue when you have a treaty being violated. Whether PR China likes it or not, they signed up to these restrictions on their sovereignty over Hong Kong.
The problem is that said treaty can happily be rescinded by the parties involved though, although granted they didn't officially do that.
At any rate, there is an extremely long and thorough tradition of states welshing on various treaties they've signed. Alas, if memory serves, the British have an long paper trail of such when it comes to the 'celestial kingdom'. Again, not saying its right more a simple matter of there being plenty of precedent for such things.
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#11
Report 3 weeks ago
#11
(Original post by saintsophia124)
In 50 years practically no one will know what Hong Kong is other than it used to be a trading colony.
What makes you think that?
0
reply
saintsophia124
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#12
Report 3 weeks ago
#12
(Original post by Napp)
What makes you think that?
World war 3, nuclear weapons used
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#13
Report 3 weeks ago
#13
(Original post by saintsophia124)
World war 3, nuclear weapons used
And why do you think we're all going to be vaporized in a nuclear duel?
Although, if there were a nuclear war, i rather doubt anyone would remember what Hong Kong was at all, trading post or not.
0
reply
saintsophia124
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#14
Report 3 weeks ago
#14
(Original post by Napp)
And why do you think we're all going to be vaporized in a nuclear duel?
Although, if there were a nuclear war, i rather doubt anyone would remember what Hong Kong was at all, trading post or not.
At the moment I don't think a war would happen this year.

In 2023 at earliest is my prediction of ww3.
More realistic is 2030 - 2050. (The war should only last 2 years.)

Nuclear weapons seem tempting especially if the ww3 involved Syria, ISIS, russia, israel, china, etc. I doubt it would escalate to nukes blowing up big cities in uk, but if a nuke does target a city, than we would need jesus to have reincarnated because that is millions of deaths
Last edited by saintsophia124; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#15
Report 3 weeks ago
#15
(Original post by saintsophia124)
At the moment I don't think a war would happen this year.

In 2023 at earliest is my prediction of ww3.
More realistic is 2030 - 2050. (The war should only last 2 years.)

Nuclear weapons seem tempting especially if the ww3 involved Syria, ISIS, russia, israel, china, etc. I doubt it would escalate to nukes blowing up big cities in uk, but if a nuke does target a city, than we would need jesus to have reincarnated because that is millions of deaths
I'm still confused as to why you think someone would let off a nuclear weapon in the next couple of years?

Nor why you think someone would waste their, extremely expensive, stockpile on an irrelevance like ISIS? Or Syria for that matter. The nuclear powers are well aware of the consequences of dropping city erasing weapons anywhere and it is more than doubtful any of them would do that bar in an existential crisis. Never mind the fact they can happily pulverize each other with conventional weapons.
0
reply
saintsophia124
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#16
Report 3 weeks ago
#16
The tensions in middle east revolve around Syria feeling the us and NATO countries are evil. Israel is too important issue for Jews and isis muslims so a war seems like it would originate there.

I'd think a nuke would not occur until at least 2030.
Last edited by saintsophia124; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
saintsophia124
Badges: 13
Rep:
?
#17
Report 3 weeks ago
#17
(Original post by Napp)
I'm still confused as to why you think someone would let off a nuclear weapon in the next couple of years?

Nor why you think someone would waste their, extremely expensive, stockpile on an irrelevance like ISIS? Or Syria for that matter. The nuclear powers are well aware of the consequences of dropping city erasing weapons anywhere and it is more than doubtful any of them would do that bar in an existential crisis. Never mind the fact they can happily pulverize each other with conventional weapons.
In the beginning of the world war 3 yes you're right no one would drop a nuke. But stress, seeing loved ones die, and

"War breeds demons"

Would lead to someone impulsively using a nuke. Idk why the usa did it in ww2

Now, no war since ww2 has anyone use a nuke. But ww2 was clearly a big war. The us Americans seemed stressed out after 4 years of fighting. Maybe they lost rationale from war weariness.

It's hard to predict but stress levels in war affect generals, commanders, commander in chiefs.

Edit: I'd think a nuke attack would not occur until at least 2030. Start your prayers.
Last edited by saintsophia124; 3 weeks ago
0
reply
Napp
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#18
Report 3 weeks ago
#18
(Original post by saintsophia124)
In the beginning of the world war 3 yes you're right no one would drop a nuke. But stress, seeing loved ones die, and

"War breeds demons"

Would lead to someone impulsively using a nuke. Idk why the usa did it in ww2

Now, no war since ww2 has anyone use a nuke. But ww2 was clearly a big war. The us Americans seemed stressed out after 4 years of fighting. Maybe they lost rationale from war weariness.

It's hard to predict but stress levels in war affect generals, commanders, commander in chiefs.

Edit: I'd think a nuke attack would not occur until at least 2030. Start your prayers.
You still havent actually said why anyone would nuke each other...

The US didn't 'impulsively' use a nuke in WWII.
Err i think you'll find war and the use of WMD's tends to be somewhat more complex than someone being a little stressed.
1
reply
imlikeahermit
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 3 weeks ago
#19
No, we have enough to worry about. Need to sort ourselves out before getting involved in other people’s business.
0
reply
L i b
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#20
Report 3 weeks ago
#20
(Original post by Napp)
The problem is that said treaty can happily be rescinded by the parties involved though, although granted they didn't officially do that.
At any rate, there is an extremely long and thorough tradition of states welshing on various treaties they've signed. Alas, if memory serves, the British have an long paper trail of such when it comes to the 'celestial kingdom'. Again, not saying its right more a simple matter of there being plenty of precedent for such things.
A treaty isn't just "rescinded" by one party. A party to it can denounce or repudiate a treaty, but that doesn't mean they're not bound by it - it's a violation.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

How will you be receiving your results?

Going into school to pick them up (191)
33.28%
Receiving them online / by email (288)
50.17%
I still don't know (95)
16.55%

Watched Threads

View All