Taiwan and China thread.

Another Wilkip thread! Did you not read when I said HK was within the new territories? 99 year lease:eek: we're on a merry -go round here

I did read that and you're wrong, HK island was already ceded in perpetuity. The *new* territories are outlined above, the name kind of gives it away!

That history.com article is incorrect, what's happened there is it's simplified things, is that not obvious?

At no part in that article has it said anything about HK island being part of the new territories btw.

Under the convention the territories north of what is now Boundary Street and south of the Sham Chun River, and the surrounding islands, later known as the "New Territories" were leased to the United Kingdom for 99 years rent-free,[1] expiring on 30 June 1997, and became part of the crown colony of Hong Kong.[

That's the treaty being referred to, it relates to extending HK.

UK granted HK in 1842 in perpetuity.

1898 UK granted a lease for 99 years for the new territories.

Not hard to follow surely?

Then fast fwd to Thatcher being in power, CCP anticipating getting back the new territories, not willing to extend the lease... UK, however, owned HK island but half the population of HK is in the new territories, CCP makes threats... end result is the UK has to give up all of HK as they won't renew the lease and it's not practical to split it.

That's what I pointed out to you in the first place, it's not hard to follow and I don't really know why you're still clinging onto some incorrect claims that are easy to show are incorrect.
 
Last edited:
I did read that and you're wrong, HK island was already ceded in perpetuity. The *new* territories are outlined above, the name kind of gives it away!

That history.com article is incorrect, what's happened there is it's simplified things, is that not obvious?

At no part in that article has it said anything about HK island being part of the new territories btw.

You're arguing with someone who has no grasp of facts and also a somewhat tenuous grasp of English. Wouldn't waste your time.
 
Assumed thread would be talking about new Tory Ministerial visit to HK - we need all the trade agreements we can get even if the EU & USA are humkering down,
did the government seek any opinion from the HK expats now in the UK;
on one hand we have commonwealth countries asking us to accept responsibility for slavery, and at the same time are initiating relationships with China participating in the same.
 
Assumed thread would be talking about new Tory Ministerial visit to HK - we need all the trade agreements we can get even if the EU & USA are humkering down,
did the government seek any opinion from the HK expats now in the UK;
on one hand we have commonwealth countries asking us to accept responsibility for slavery, and at the same time are initiating relationships with China participating in the same.

jpaul, if that even is your real name which I dou - actually, it could be - what on the earth is going on with your sentence structure my dude?

Genuinely curious :)
 
I did read that and you're wrong, HK island was already ceded in perpetuity. The *new* territories are outlined above, the name kind of gives it away!

That history.com article is incorrect, what's happened there is it's simplified things, is that not obvious?

At no part in that article has it said anything about HK island being part of the new territories btw.



That's the treaty being referred to, it relates to extending HK.

UK granted HK in 1842 in perpetuity.

1898 UK granted a lease for 99 years for the new territories.

Not hard to follow surely?

Then fast fwd to Thatcher being in power, CCP anticipating getting back the new territories, not willing to extend the lease... UK, however, owned HK island but half the population of HK is in the new territories, CCP makes threats... end result is the UK has to give up all of HK as they won't renew the lease and it's not practical to split it.

That's what I pointed out to you in the first place, it's not hard to follow and I don't really know why you're still clinging onto some incorrect claims that are easy to show are incorrect.

You must be a "Wikipedians" user:eek:

Jimmy Wales said Wikimedia, don’t put information on Wikipedia pages that has to be done by one of our users. Anyone can write or edit entries on Wikipedia, and in almost every country on Earth. But Wikipedia, perhaps contrary to popular belief, isn’t a source of information at all. Because people who are not experts in a field can update a page anytime to reflect whatever information they feel to be true, to join Wikipedia no request for your CV, no job interview, no salary. You start off making edits to improve pages; when you’ve done perhaps ten or so useful edits or set up new pages with verifiable information, your privileges are extended to give you more power.

In 2019 China and Taiwan clash over Wikipedia edits. BBC Click's investigation has found almost 1,600 tendentious edits across 22 politically sensitive articles, they argue are serious anti-Chinese biases endemic across Wikipedia.


(1898 UK granted a lease for 99 years for the new territories.)

Where do you think HK is on the map! The image you posted was major part of Hong Kong's territories , owned by the British 99 years not just new territories your calming on Wikip and I remember you telling me there was no 99 year lease! make up your mind Wikipedian please do you home work. Hong Kong Island and Kowloon. It stretches from north of Kowloon to the Chinese border, covering the northern part of Kowloon and south of the Sham Chun River.


I never back down or give up on Wikipedians
 
Last edited:
Just because it comes from Wikipedia doesn't mean it isn't true (or is true) it is just a handy reference which can be cross-checked against multiple sources. Your riling against Wiki is misplaced at best.
 
Just because it comes from Wikipedia doesn't mean it isn't true (or is true) it is just a handy reference which can be cross-checked against multiple sources. Your riling against Wiki is misplaced at best.

The funny thing is I used get pick-on OCUK for using it,;) then I learn the truth about how Wikipedia works with the Wikipedians users because they keep changing the edits. I found this from gov.uk


It reads
In 1997, Hong Kong stopped being a British colony after more than 150 years of British rule. Authority over Hong Kong was transferred to China. Many see this moment as the end of the last significant colony in the British Empire.

Hong Kong became a British colony through two wars: the First and Second Opium Wars. The First Opium War broke out in 1839. It is called the ‘Opium War’ because of one of its major causes: the British were smuggling opium from their Indian colonies into Chinese ports against the wishes of the Chinese government. This was to help pay for the large amounts of Chinese tea that they were importing – by the early 1800s, tea was a popular drink with the British public. Britain also wanted more control over their trade with China, as they could only trade with certain officials called Hong merchants.

The Opium Wars resulted in two treaties, each expanding the size of Britain’s Hong Kong territory. These treaties were followed by a 99-year lease in 1898 that allowed Britain to control even more land – a lease that ran out in 1997.

(Your riling against Wiki is misplaced at best)

That you opinion, I too have a different opinion and outlook:D

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a reliable source (they emit it themselves)


Wikipedia is reference only that is what you said and what I found online. Wikipedia should be used as a tool to get started, and should never be the only source of research. :D

 
Last edited:
I remember you telling me there was no 99 year lease!

This is part of the problem, over several posts, you can't get basic facts correct, can't understand a pretty straightforward thing (HK island ceded in perpetuity in 1842, New Territories leased for 99 years in 1898) and now you're imagining things too.

Can you quote that thing you remember?

If you can't follow something simple, which only requires a few basic facts to understand (apparently you're confused because some history websites have glossed over the details) then no wonder you get muddled when it comes to other things.
 
Good talk with Niall Ferguson.

The idea of Cold War 2 being like Cold War 1 in fast forward is definitely a reason for the West to sort themselves out instead of bickering over silly things like partygate and gender pronouns.

Russia-Ukraine war being analogous to the Korean war as the first hot war, and then the possibility of USA unable to provide meaningful defence to Taiwan being their "Suez Canal moment". There's probably a few opportunities for a Cuban Missile Crisis type thing along the way too.

The difference now is that the territorial war is just one component of it and the ideological war is being fought every day on the Internet. The Marxist ideology espoused by the likes of China and Russia has a grip on the West, and is a huge threat to the democratic capitalist model that has given us security over the past few decades.

 
China has fined a comedian $1.7 million for a joke he made on stage where he compared the Chinese military to a dog chasing a squirrel. China also deleted all his social media accounts.

The theatre that hosted the comedy show was also shut down as punishment as its owners may be punished.

In a statement released by the CCP, they said they will never tolerate anyone who makes fun of the Chinese military

 
China bankrupts more poor countries

I met a Chinese guy last year who is involved in some of these deals, he earns a fortune from them, he doesn't work directly for the Chinese government but for a trading company. I asked about the unfinished road in the Balkans etc.. and he just doesn't give a ****, the gist of his position was that any blame is down to the stupidity of their counterparties who willingly entered these deals and it's his job to simply get as much as he can.
 
One of the things analysts keep mentioning about China is that their dwindling population is going to lead to their demise in the second half of the decade. They are running out of farmers to move into the city for cheap labour etc. I don't see that happening when they have their claws in big chunks of Africa. Via economic imperialism their effective population may not decrease as much as the West is banking on.
 
One of the things analysts keep mentioning about China is that their dwindling population is going to lead to their demise in the second half of the decade. They are running out of farmers to move into the city for cheap labour etc. I don't see that happening when they have their claws in big chunks of Africa. Via economic imperialism their effective population may not decrease as much as the West is banking on.

I can't see China wanting to import Africans en masse.
 
I can't see China wanting to import Africans en masse.

The way these counties operate doesn't necessarily mean importing - they'd be sent as workers with little rights and poor conditions by countries who are desperate, etc. (i.e. ones in huge debt to China related to the thing above).

The was NK for instance sends gangs of workers to Russia, etc.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom