Another Wilkip thread! Did you not read when I said HK was within the new territories? 99 year lease 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.
Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
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: