Zero? I don't remember UK integrating any colonies, even Gibraltar and the Falklands aren't integrated.
Hong Kong's New Territories Ceded in Perpetuity
- Thread starter LawyersGunsMoney
- Start date
Zero? I don't remember UK integrating any colonies, even Gibraltar and the Falklands aren't integrated.
I'm pretty sure that if the NT was ceded in perpetuity, the PRC would blow a lot of hot air about how this is 'violation of sovereignty' and all that but it wouldn't do anything. Hong Kong is too important for China, first as a source of foreign exchange, and secondly as a major source of investment capital. Neither will they punish Britain for holding on to Hong Kong - the PRC has been described as the 'high church of realpolitik' and will continue to act like one.
And no, there was no way in hell Hong Kongers were going to greet a military invasion of the PRC as liberators of any sort. Hong Kongers are generally descended from refugees fleeing Red China, and the riots of 1967 turned more than one generation away from anything resembling Communism.
But I agree with a referendum being pretty inevitable at some point. Unfortunately (as a Hong Konger) I have no doubt that Hong Kongers would have voted to unite with China, since even the (opposition) Democratic Party agreed with the necessity of 'returning to the motherland' prior to 1997. Probably a 51-49 vote or something.
I don't agree that joint sovereignty would have happened. It's all or nothing. Joint sovereignty would have been the same as reunification given the massive power disparity between the PRC and the UK.
And no, there was no way in hell Hong Kongers were going to greet a military invasion of the PRC as liberators of any sort. Hong Kongers are generally descended from refugees fleeing Red China, and the riots of 1967 turned more than one generation away from anything resembling Communism.
But I agree with a referendum being pretty inevitable at some point. Unfortunately (as a Hong Konger) I have no doubt that Hong Kongers would have voted to unite with China, since even the (opposition) Democratic Party agreed with the necessity of 'returning to the motherland' prior to 1997. Probably a 51-49 vote or something.
I don't agree that joint sovereignty would have happened. It's all or nothing. Joint sovereignty would have been the same as reunification given the massive power disparity between the PRC and the UK.
Last edited:
See, the cession of Macau gives a lot of people the impression Portugal was under some sort of obligation to return Macau when it was the Portuguese junta attempting to offload its colonial empire as soon as it could. Like I said in another thread,
If China wants to liberalise, they won't do anything rash. China "also" has a claim over Taiwan. They haven't bothered trying to enforce that anytime recently, so I think the discrediting effect of going and killing lots of people for land would also be in play here.
If China wants to liberalise, they won't do anything rash. China "also" has a claim over Taiwan. They haven't bothered trying to enforce that anytime recently, so I think the discrediting effect of going and killing lots of people for land would also be in play here.
I wouldn't say marginalizing a state from the international community and forcing it to ridiculously bill itself as the de jure China under threat of war is something to sneeze at. With that as Hong Kong's alternative, it's no wonder Thatcher did what she did. However, I do think that you have a point in that it was the UK that first brought this up, not China. I don't think the PRC seriously expected to get Hong Kong back until Thatcher brought it up. They didn't seriously expect to get back Taiwan. So I don't think whether or not the New Territories are ceded in perpetuity matters one bit in the end. Just have Thatcher do things different, or more likely, have a PM that cares about giving Hong Kongers proper self-government at an early enough stage that Hong Kongers realize they don't want to reunite with the mainland when the referendum bell tolls.
Maybe because Hong Kong is a rich international metropolis, not a glorified military base or a pair of sheep pastures in the South Atlantic?
That said, why hasn't the UK integrated places like Gibraltar or the Falklands?
Last edited:
There's also the question of whether the locals want to be integrated into the UK. The current set-up gives them local autonomy within an overarching British system that guarantees their independence, Gibraltar especially is able to use that to create a favourable tax and regulatory system to attract businesses.
This is one of the few things where China is non-negotiable - just as it's unthinkable for any Chinese government of any stripe to concede Taiwan or Tibet, Hong Kong is also not conceivable. It doesn't necessarily have to use threats of force - create support for the One Country Two Systems idea by reaching out to the city's conglomerates which always have and still do hold ultimate power (i.e. Hong Kong companies will receive better treatment as investors under our sovereignty). Once the conglomerates are in favour of such an arrangement there's little anyone else can do to impede it.
If Thatcher was insane enough to do what Panica suggested and employ a scorched earth policy to destroy the city, yes Hong Kongers will welcome the PLA as liberators. Anyone other than the Korean People's Army will be greeted as such.
Thatcher won't hold a referendum. What precedent does that set for another British territory far closer to home - Northern Ireland?
The PRC from the beginning declared these unequal treaties as null and void. By not objecting to this declaration, Britain effectively accepted it.
IOTL when Thatcher approached Reagan asking for support on this matter, he responded with a polite letter. It was US policy to support Deng's reform plans, and the return of Hong Kong strengthened his power within China. ITTL the US policy will be the same.
I'm not saying that China will give up its claim to Hong Kong. I'm just saying that they will wait and wait and wait until a 'better time', which will probably never come as long as Britain/the HK people want to keep things as they are.
The economic argument works both ways. Yes, the city's conglomerates might well be more well-disposed to China through various carrots. But as long as reunification hasn't happened yet, they will be more scared of the potential ramifications of Communist takeover. Jardines moved to Singapore during the 1990s over these concerns, and the PRC needed to ask the HK/UK governments to stop HSBC and Swire from doing so as well. Even now, after 16 years of nothing happening, people here are still worried about what will happen to their property in 2047.
Oh, and all the talk about pro-democracy parties getting 60% of the vote misses the point. The main pro-democracy activists during the 1990s - Szeto Wah, Lee-Wing Tat and maybe Martin Lee - were all in favor of democracy and self-rule under Chinese sovereignty. A naive position to take, perhaps, but that was how it was.
Well I doubt the UK would want to integrate Hong Kong. So much diplomatic trouble and for what? For hordes of Hong Kong people flooding into the UK, for UK industry to be wrecked as factories move to Hong Kong, and for the UK government to embarrass itself as it vainly tries to integrate a colonial government that is firmly stuck in the 1940s. It's even almost not worth it as a colony - Hong Kong trashed UK's textile industry in the 1960s and refused to save the plummeting pound in the 1970s.
The economic argument works both ways. Yes, the city's conglomerates might well be more well-disposed to China through various carrots. But as long as reunification hasn't happened yet, they will be more scared of the potential ramifications of Communist takeover. Jardines moved to Singapore during the 1990s over these concerns, and the PRC needed to ask the HK/UK governments to stop HSBC and Swire from doing so as well. Even now, after 16 years of nothing happening, people here are still worried about what will happen to their property in 2047.
Oh, and all the talk about pro-democracy parties getting 60% of the vote misses the point. The main pro-democracy activists during the 1990s - Szeto Wah, Lee-Wing Tat and maybe Martin Lee - were all in favor of democracy and self-rule under Chinese sovereignty. A naive position to take, perhaps, but that was how it was.
Well I doubt the UK would want to integrate Hong Kong. So much diplomatic trouble and for what? For hordes of Hong Kong people flooding into the UK, for UK industry to be wrecked as factories move to Hong Kong, and for the UK government to embarrass itself as it vainly tries to integrate a colonial government that is firmly stuck in the 1940s. It's even almost not worth it as a colony - Hong Kong trashed UK's textile industry in the 1960s and refused to save the plummeting pound in the 1970s.
Well today with most Hong Kongers feeling that their living standards have gotten worse (relatively speaking), probably yes.
But back then the main narrative was about more abstract ideals. Most of the 'ideas people' were fully connected with the massive Chinese literature on the Century of Humiliation and the dream of bringing the Chinese nation back into its place in the Sun. Even Tiananmen only shifted the narrative a little by pointing out that change in Mainland China could only be achieved if HK was part of the Motherland.
So all media - from radio to newspapers to TV stations - would have been in favor of reunification. And, as in the US, that influences the vote.
I suppose my point should be more nuanced in that if you held the referendum in say, any time around 1989 to 1991, you would likely be correct.
The feeling of 'otherness' in Hong Kong that is now of such concern to the PRC only began rearing its head around 2009 with the High-Speed Rail controversy and even then was a small issue until 2011 with the election of increasingly radical politicians and the rise of the 'post-'80s'.