1985: No Sino-British Declaration

As we all know, in 1985 the British government agreed to hand over control of Hong Kong to the PRC by 1997. However - what would happen if this joint declaration never happened? What if British nationalism prevented it, or the Chinese government simply decided against it. Surely the Chinese weren't willing to go to war over one island. Would their be pushes for independence? Or would Hong Kong be eventually integrated into the UK fully - forming the United Kingdom of Great Britain, Northern Ireland, and Hong Kong? I think that would be a very interesting scenario, but how plausible is it?
 
No way is Hong Kong going to be integrated into the UK, 7 million Asian voters? No way. Far more likely you have a similar declaration a few years later, the biggest change would be if the UK is still in charge come the Asian Financial Crisis.
 
I wouldn't see a reason for England to keep Hong Kong after the unrest in China and Southeast Asia was quelled.

Although there is no reason to give it up, except for China's begging. You could see some peaceful-turned-violent protests on the border, and maybe a blockade around Hong Kong, but nothing Berlin hasn't survived.

North Ireland and Hong Kong, the odd men out.
 
I think it would be more likely for Hong Kong to be an independent nation within the British Commonwealth than for it to be directly integrated into the UK.
 
Regarding Chinese invasion-no way no how. Hong Kong security had been given a guarrantee by the US back in the 60s when it had looked like the Chinese were preparing a coup de main. We did have 2 brigades stationed there at the time plus around 70 tanks plus some artillery (and far East Fleet with a fleet strike carrier) but thats something and nowt-so US agreed...

If HK was still British then what of the New Territories-an extended lease? Oh and no would never have become integrated into UK-see it more like the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.
 
I suggest everyone read The Downing Street Years. Thatcher describes her meetings with Deng, she went as far as saying that the PRC could have sovereignty in return for continued UK administration. He reminded her that he could simply order a military occupation after turning off the electric and water supplies. Then it was back to a handover timetable. IMO the OTL deal was the best the UK could've gotten.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
So basically it would end up like a financially well off version of the Falklands, or Bermudea?

Yeah, minus the vaunted "will of the people" - the new territories were basically loaned from China anyway and contained an enormous amount of the city's vital infrastructure, including the Hong Kong international airport.
 
I suggest everyone read The Downing Street Years. Thatcher describes her meetings with Deng, she went as far as saying that the PRC could have sovereignty in return for continued UK administration. He reminded her that he could simply order a military occupation after turning off the electric and water supplies. Then it was back to a handover timetable. IMO the OTL deal was the best the UK could've gotten.

Explained here in The Times article.

Thats when I read about Deng's threats (or bluffs depending on how you read it).
 
I think it would be more likely for Hong Kong to be an independent nation within the British Commonwealth than for it to be directly integrated into the UK.
This.
British colonial policy has for the past 40 or 50 years been all about spinning off as many countries as independant as possible. There is little 'nationalism' about it, no chance of it becoming part of the UK- because its on the other side of the world, not because of its race-, no British profits from it.
Hong Kong is certainly a viable nation on its own.
 
This.
British colonial policy has for the past 40 or 50 years been all about spinning off as many countries as independant as possible. There is little 'nationalism' about it, no chance of it becoming part of the UK- because its on the other side of the world, not because of its race-, no British profits from it.
Hong Kong is certainly a viable nation on its own.

Viable before or after China cut off water and electricity supply?

Oh, and demand 85% of the land area back (the leased part of the land, Britain has no choice in this matter in handing it over. Disputing the treaty's validity is not a can of worm you want to open). And the majority of the REST of the local water supply. And the bulk of the rail infrastructure. And the territory's large and only container port. And the one and only airport.

Let's face it. Hong Kong is viable for precisely as long as the People's Republic of China let it, and not one second more. Madam Thatcher knew this. Deng knew this. And they both knew that China will not let Hong Kong be anything other than a Chinese territory after the lease runs out... hence the result.

All things considered, this wasn't a terribly bad deal. I speak English here. I go to the Cricket Club. The press criticise the Chinese government freely. People demonstrate. The police are the least corrupt and most efficient I've seen ANYWHERE. Falungong demonstrates with irritating regularity. Tiananmen is commemorated every year with large gatherings. Madam Thatcher had a lousy hand and she played pretty much as well as anyone could be expected to.
 
Top