Thread: Hong Kong Was Better Under the British

Originally Posted by BobR

Not quite, we sent them packing around 1776.

1781 Siege of Yorktown

I like their apartments. Just a matter of time until the next disease breaks out.
The maker of birdflu, a man living in a cage. They have 100,000 more of these birds.

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

Everywhere was better under The British don't you know!

Can the Brits leave their Island...so I can see the difference.

Originally Posted by Kurgen

Originally Posted by Bettyboo

The whole world was better under British rule; goes without saying...

Damned right, look what's happened to America since we left

Are you mistaking losing a war with leaving?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

the author does bring a valid point, the pressure of an external force was key to the political cleanness of the place

and let's not forget it was Thatcher who gave it all back to the Chinese without a fight, the silly bitch

Given that we never claimed ownership, that was the correct thing to do.

Originally Posted by Butterfly

the author does bring a valid point, the pressure of an external force was key to the political cleanness of the place

and let's not forget it was Thatcher who gave it all back to the Chinese without a fight, the silly bitch

What is it about continentals and their inability to grasp a reality not immediately within their own blinkered domain?

Hong Kong island and Kowloon were leased to the British in perpetuity but the New Territories were on a 99 year lease. Without the NT Hong Kong was as viable as a duck with no feet. Think of the inevitable fall of Singapore when the Japanese gained control of the water pipeline from Malaya and you may get the idea. Since China was not minded to negotiate an extension over the NT Hong Kong's return was a foregone conclusion.

Comprends maintenant mon brave?
Usually, you're not this stupid Butterfly but I imagine your dislike for Britain and the British has yet again clouded your vision.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by BobR

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

Everywhere was better under The British don't you know!

Not quite, we sent them packing around 1776.

Yet, still retain deep seated Anglo-based values throughout the societal infrastructure.

Yet, separated by a common language.

Jadeen and Matheson built up Hong Kong on the sale of Opeum.

Originally Posted by ltnt

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by BobR

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

Everywhere was better under The British don't you know!

Not quite, we sent them packing around 1776.

Yet, still retain deep seated Anglo-based values throughout the societal infrastructure.

Yet, separated by a common language.

G.B. Shaw.

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by ltnt

Originally Posted by Rural Surin

Originally Posted by BobR

Originally Posted by good2bhappy

Everywhere was better under The British don't you know!

Not quite, we sent them packing around 1776.

Yet, still retain deep seated Anglo-based values throughout the societal infrastructure.

Yet, separated by a common language.

G.B. Shaw.

Winston Churchill I thought?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

the author does bring a valid point, the pressure of an external force was key to the political cleanness of the place

and let's not forget it was Thatcher who gave it all back to the Chinese without a fight, the silly bitch

Oh I think that she tried to fight. Rumour has it that she "demanded" that the lease be extended.I don't think that the Chinese appreciated her demands and promptly told her to go fcuk herself.

Originally Posted by thegent

Hong Kong island and Kowloon were leased to the British in perpetuity but the New Territories were on a 99 year lease. Without the NT Hong Kong was as viable as a duck with no feet. Think of the inevitable fall of Singapore when the Japanese gained control of the water pipeline from Malaya and you may get the idea. Since China was not minded to negotiate an extension over the NT Hong Kong's return was a foregone conclusion.

like I said, you bent over and took it in the arse like true English men

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

and promptly told her to go fcuk herself.

which she promptly did,

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Originally Posted by Butterfly

the author does bring a valid point, the pressure of an external force was key to the political cleanness of the place

and let's not forget it was Thatcher who gave it all back to the Chinese without a fight, the silly bitch

Oh I think that she tried to fight. Rumour has it that she "demanded" that the lease be extended.I don't think that the Chinese appreciated her demands and promptly told her to go fcuk herself.

All I remember was that silly git Charles standing in the poring rain signing off one of the last British holdings.....he might of melted in the monsoon.

Not having a dog in this fight, but I think the lease ran out and the British were politely asked to depart in an orderly and timely manner by Mainland China. both sides agreed to the end date. Many HK Chinese fled with their riches to Vancouver BC and elsewhere in fear that the Mainland Chinese would take away their vast wealth earned under the guidance of the British Empire.

Now it seems their fears were unwarranted and they live the best of both worlds as British, Chinese and Canadian citizens. You must feel lucky to have been forced out of HK if you were a rich Chinese in HK during this period of uncertainty.?

Originally Posted by nevets

sale of Opeum.

is that the same as opium?
I think you have been reading too much James Clavell

Originally Posted by Little Chuchok

Originally Posted by Butterfly

the author does bring a valid point, the pressure of an external force was key to the political cleanness of the place

and let's not forget it was Thatcher who gave it all back to the Chinese without a fight, the silly bitch

Oh I think that she tried to fight. Rumour has it that she "demanded" that the lease be extended.I don't think that the Chinese appreciated her demands and promptly told her to go fcuk herself.

What was there to fight? As I explained already, the NT's lease expired 1997.

The British negotiating position, once the Chinese made it clear an extension was not on the table, was a compromise in that sovereignty would be relinquished in return for the right to administer. The Chinese wouldn't accept this. Given the uncertainty arising out of the deadlock Hong Kong's economic position was unravelling at an alarming degree and it was clear to both sides that something had to be agreed if it were not all to turn to dust. The guarantee of a SAR and the "one country, two systems" policy paved the way for an orderly handover.

Talk of giving up a British colony without a fight is simply juvenile.

First time for everything. I think in the minds of the British Empire Hong Kong was a British protectorate, not a Chinese colony. I'm sure with some creative thinking and posting one can conjour up a civilized response to the truth that the British Empire had no negotiating field in this matter. either turn over Hong Kong or go to war with China. I think that was a pretty persuasive argument. Silk purse on a sows ear will not cover the truth of the negotiation. China kicked the British out fair and square. Just as Panama took back its sovereign territory from the USA.

I rather think you are somewhat ignorant of the reality. Hong Kong and Kowloon is essentially a city utterly dependent upon the New Territories and mainland China for its survival. That is from where its water and food comes from. The lease for the New Territories expired in 1997. No New Territories = no food. It's hardly rocket science. Are you seriously suggesting the British had an option to invade these after 1/7/97 and regain them by force? Against all international law and an army of 6 millions?

Are you an Americasn Itnt?

Originally Posted by Butterfly

Hong Kong Was Better Under the British

I was in HK in 2004 and a Chinese guy said exactly those words to me. He also said that when we were there they longed for our departure.
Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing ?

minority groups in many ex-colonies express similar sentiments

ok, so the Brits were taken by the balls and the Chinese would have starved HK if they didn't get it back

maybe that would have been a better outcome, the region would have developed more aggressively and the Chinese would have got the message

instead Thatcher yielded it all (if it was only HK but she had yielded on so many issues even in the EU), and encouraged a legacy of tycoons to survive and become more rich and corrupted.

Another success story by Thatcher. She was always a whore for raw capitalism.

^
Maybe right!!

But she is not the same class of whore that the Nicolas Sarkozy the President of France married. Not by a long stretch....

Originally Posted by Butterfly

ok, so the Brits were taken by the balls and the Chinese would have starved HK if they didn't get it back

maybe that would have been a better outcome, the region would have developed more aggressively and the Chinese would have got the message

instead Thatcher yielded it all (if it was only HK but she had yielded on so many issues even in the EU), and encouraged a legacy of tycoons to survive and become more rich and corrupted.

Another success story by Thatcher. She was always a whore for raw capitalism.

Now you're just being silly again. Britain, unlike the French and Belgians with their colonies, exercised a responsiblity for its dominions those countries never could or did. To let HK descend into chaos and ignore the fate of 4 millions was never an option. As it was, we made a reasonable fist out of it.

Anyway, what's your beef against the rich and corrupted? You seem to have happily supported France all the while. What's changed?

Originally Posted by thegent

HK's heyday was between the late 60s and early-mid 70s.

FILTH : Failed in London Try HK