As someone from a country that was formerly part of the British Empire, I am viewing the situation in Hong Kong with horror. There are many negative things about the British legacy, but they gave us a global language, institutions, law, and notions of personal and economic freedom. The idea of all that being eaten by China...
And also to kill. And there are a lot of mainland Chinese people.
Frankly, I don’t know how anyone has the stomach to sit behind a heavy machine gun and turn 200 mothers’ sons into rotting meat. I’d probably reach for my pistol.
Not that the PLA likely uses the same tactics as they did in the 1950s.
HK is just too close to China, you wouldn't want to throw your forces to defend it. Taiwan is probably defendable although it's better for everyone if it remains de facto independent but not risk China's ire.
Freedom is extremely expensive in terms of blood required to achieve it, so I'm always amazed at how easily people are convinced to give it up one inch at a time until it's all gone again.
And in plenty of fields, people do actually have this option. Correcting society is an explicit goal of social work and psychology, both in research and practice. From "youth work" (50%+ unwanted by both youth and parents, and when it comes to residential treatments 85%+ unwanted, and 12% residential treatment is convicted youth) to "social work" for adults (again, majority is unwanted)
And of course, unwanted means that for the "clients" there is at the very least a threat of violence against them (or their kids/family/...) in the majority (for kids VERY large majority) of cases.
In some countries, "the social sector" is the biggest public sector, in all countries it's very, very big. Including the US, but at least here it doesn't exceed education or the medical sector in size.
Of course, these don't let themselves be stopped by the longstanding research pointing out that without client's cooperation (and of course unwanted means no cooperation), there is little to no point to treatment, and very significant downsides. Which is why horror stories like this happen:
As the American Declaration of Independence states "..all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed"
What a truly, extra-ordinary document on the human condition. Coming up with that text in that era..I wish I had that kind of insight and wisdom.
Sure, they agreed to transition period until 2050 or so... But when that was signed HK was a significant part of the Chinese economy.
Even though HK is still significant, it's been eclipsed by China itself, and China can afford to kill (part) of HK to finally end this humiliation, as they see it.
I wish the U.S. could make a New Hong Kong territory on the west coast somewhere. I think that would give the HKers access to the Pacific and a place to rebuild. I'd love to have those brilliant entrepreneurs and engineers over here.
Nah I think in HK's case it would be awesome. They'd have the autonomy to set up their own laws and regulations similar to what they currently have. I know this is a pie in the sky proposal but in my ideal world this would be a thing.
If you mean our military bases in Japan and South Korea, who have no great trust of China, I'm not sure why China's opinion would be relevant there. If it's not controversial for Britain to offer them citizenship then it shouldn't be for US either. Even if it is...you gotta stand up to communism.
> If it's not controversial for Britain to offer them citizenship then it shouldn't be for US either
China objects strongly. It says these are Chinese citizens and Britain ceased to have any claim over the territory decades ago.
Of course since Britain's offer exists only on paper (there is no mechanism proposed by which a typical person in Hong Kong should actually make use of the offer to leave) the Chinese objection likewise extends only to paper.
Give Hong Kongers a piece of land and they wouldn’t even claim it’s an invasion. It’d be a piece of land given exclusively to people from China. In what world would China say that it isn’t theirs? They’ve claimed land with far shakier backing. Literally all they’d need to do is bus in a few loyal people, set them up to take power, and have them hand it over to Beijing.
Because that’s exactly what’s happening with HK now and people here are saying it was a dumb idea. Why repeat it?
It would be flatly illegal per the fourteenth amendment. We don't have special classes of citizens in the USA, period. Doing this constitutionally would require something like ceding the territory to a new government or something.
I think we should let the UK pay for its sins for a change. Setting up anything "autonomous" with its own laws and customs is a terrible idea. Assimilation should be a requirement for immigration.
Puerto Rico doesn't make much sense to me - they should either be a state and have the full rights and federal oversight that every other state does, or be their own thing entirely. Living in this limbo world where you're a citizen but sometimes in name only if you're on the island seems wrong.
They’re in a limbo because they don’t agree on what should happen. In the most recent real referendum (2012), a plurality slightly short of a majority wanted to maintain the status quo. But the rest were split: some wanted statehood, but the others wanted to be independent.
Note that Puerto Ricans are fully citizens. The island itself doesn’t have representation in Congress because it’s not a state. (Which is a legal thing that’s distinct from the people who live in the state! The “United States” isn’t just a name, it has legal significance.)
I agree for the historical reasons, but I don't think it should be left to Puerto Rico if they can't decide. The US should just say we are (state-hooding/evicting) you, unless you decide one way or the other. Along those same lines, I also think DC should gain representation in congress in some manner, either by largely becoming part of VA, or by becoming a 51st state(DC has more people than Wyoming or Vermont, and about as much as Alaska).
That's always the case in anything colonial-like. I don't see why we should intervene though. "Autonomy" in the US means Sharia Law in Minnesota, unfortunately. We don't know how to do it well, if it can be done "well" at all.
>I think that would give the HKers access to the Pacific and a place to rebuild. I'd love to have those brilliant entrepreneurs and engineers over here.
Not many special "brilliant entrepreneurs". Just regular ole entrepreneurs taking advantage of the specific spot HK was in, and the specific relationship between Britain and China for global trade.
Merely bring the same people elsewhere would accomplish no great miracle.
It's not like taking SV-based VCs and programmers into e.g. Oklahome (where they'd just make a new hotspot, since their skills are carried with them).
It's more like taking the people in the tourist industry of Miami and moving them to Maine. It just wont work as well, since it was all about location in the first place...
There's nothing particularly special about SV VCs /programmers. Just a crapload of capital allocated there. Programmers are abundant throughout the country.
Not sure if I agree. Maimi tourism shifting to Maine is totally different beast since tourism by definition relies on local sights.
SV-based entrepreneurs are already going to places like Austin and Portland. It takes time.
It would quicker if we get 3 million people situated in an abstract region of US since the critical mass to get the ball rolling would already have been achieved. It would be a challenge, but not for the reasons you've dilineated.
Sorry but after watching the organized demonstrators against the CCP regime, I strongly disagree. And Miami itself is an interesting example you chose. Miami is made up of largely Cuban immigrants and their descendants who fled communism in Cuba only to succeed by and large in capitalist USA. They created a thriving ethnic community in South Florida and were given opportunities they would never have been able to achieve under the thumb of Castro.
While it wouldn't be exactly like HK, being a semi-autonomous territory of the US would allow the new goverment/economy to be in a unique position. Imagine, for example, if New-HK was allowed to set their own tariffs and taxes for goods coming into/out of their ports, while maintaining 100% free trade with the continental US.
>Imagine, for example, if New-HK was allowed to set their own tariffs and taxes for goods coming into/out of their ports, while maintaining 100% free trade with the continental US.
So this new territory could undercut every US-based port on tariffs, then ship everything to the USA consumer anyway? I don't see anyone agreeing to that deal.
No one wants to live in planned cities. Virtually all of them are failures. What's to stop any of them simply getting on a bus to Seattle or San Diego? Are you going to put the army around this territory?
It's quite amusing the hypothetical lengths people will go to "caring" but still straight up open about not letting foreigners into their actual country.
It would be hilarious to see the US using their resources to help some (often wealthy and highly educated) people across the fucking ocean before using them to help the poor in their own country.
The UK stands to benefit tremendously from this olive branch to the HK people. It could rival Operation Paperclip (but without the war crimes coverups)
I don’t understand where people get that idea from.
In practice nothing the US has done has hurt the CCP. If anything, it has strengthened them domestically.
The major actions the Trump administration has taken against China are:
1) Tariffs which only served to hurt American farmers, considering there was hardly any drop off in Chinese exports to the US (and that’s on paper, since a lot of Chinese exports are now hidden as Vietnamese exports, etc) but significant drop offs in American exports to China.
2) A long sustained battle against 1 Chinese company. While Huawei is suffering, the likes of Xiaomi, etc are still doing just fine.
3) Whining about the nomenclature around SARS-COV-2.
On the flip side, the administration dismantled TPP, which was a decade+ long effort spanning multiple US administrations, and nearly every non Chinese country on the Pacific, that would have actually dealt a huge blow to Chinese bullying by providing companies doing manufacturing in China much more attractive alternatives in the countries surrounding China.
Xiaomi is only in end-user electronics and has nothing on infrastructure hardware - AFAIK it is not competing with US companies in deploying 5G hardware.
I do not consider a +20% drop in Chinese exports to the US as "hardly any drop".
TPP was a nightmare opposed both by the left and right - and even by Hillary Clinton - at-least formally in her campaign. Only corporate shareholders supported it. It even pushed copyright terms further! See
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/whats-wrong-tpp
Many immigrants who fled communism to come to the US remain strong Republican voters. Cubans are still registered Republicans 2:1. Even as of 2008, Vietnamese Americans were registered Republicans by a significant margin.
Unlike Trump, Johnson has done a good job pulling in minority voters. About half the Indian MPs in the U.K. Parliament are Tories.
Your comment is particularly inexplicable given that Labour just ran someone who wants to put a call for collectivizing property back in Labour’s platform.
Of the four “Great Offices of State”, two are held by people of South Asian heritage, as is the AG, and another Cabinet Member. Two of those people are also women. Got to imaging Sajid Javid will be back there soon. Three of those five families that went via the empire in Africa. Conspicuous absence of black people tho.
I imagine Priti will throw her hat in the ring too, although God forbid it comes to pass. I think Sunak would be a strong choice, where Javid doesn’t have the charisma.
> I wonder what good things this will do for the UK.
Firstly this would bring UK a lot of respect from the world community as any country prepared to stand up to the rule of law will always look good.
Next, before China started messing with HK it was the financial hub of Asia, but as China starts to erode the rule of law in HK that title will most likely move on to Singapore.
This then means the UK has a great opportunity as it then means they will most likely see an influx of:
1. Well educated HK citizens
2. HK citizens bringing in their wealth (some of whom will no doubt be super rich) which is always good as it helps to build up the national wealth.
Surely the super rich already have Cyprus passports? This doesn’t really seem like a meaningful offer for the rich, they’d have no trouble with immigration anyway.
London is currently in a life or death battle with HK over its future as a financial trading hub. Brexit was making prospects difficult for the UK, but an exodus of the wealthy upper class and their businesses to London would change that.
The Sino-British Joint Declaration was a mistake. What did they think would happen? If not now then what about in 2047?! Were they hoping that was enough time to warm the new generations to the idea of giving up their rights?
There is no fixing this, but I appreciate the effort by the British. Many will not want to leave, understandably. But the threat of draining HK is an interesting sort of pressure to put on China..
Ultimately, the UK had absolutely zero chance at holding HK against the Chinese, HK was a tiny colony that could be seized basically instantly, and at the time decolonialization was still a global hotbutton issue.
A few decades before negotiations began between China and the UK, India seized the Portuguese colony of Goa[1]. Nobody acted on behalf of the Portuguese. With the USA having just a few years beforehand suffered defeat in the Vietnam war, and extremely unlikely to have the public support for another land war in Asia, but this time against a vastly stronger opponent for a relatively much less important parcel of land, There is little reason to believe anyone would have, or could have seriously contested China seizing Hong Kong.
Consider as well, during the Korean war, A China still badly crippled by World War 2 almost single handedly defeated an entire coalition of western powers, including a USA at the zenith of their conventional arms power.
The declaration was an alternative to a military annexation of Hong Kong by the Chinese.
The British probably acquiesced more than they had to, and didn't guarantee enough rights for Hong Kong citizens (especially the really lame part about not giving them a path to citizenship in the UK proper), but make no mistake, the alternative to the declaration wasn't Hong Kong remaining a part of the UK, it was Chinese invasion.
>Consider as well, during the Korean war, A China still badly crippled by World War 2 almost single handedly defeated an entire coalition of western powers, including a USA at the zenith of their conventional arms power.
Isn't that because China got the drop on the western powers?
From what I've read it was mostly hubris. Intelligence knew of the build up of Chinese Troops at the Yellow River. China has also shared through diplomatic channels that if UN troops got with 300 miles (? can't remember the exact number), China would stop them.
China did do a good job of attacking where the UN wasn't expecting as well.
A China still badly crippled by World War 2 almost single handedly defeated an entire coalition of western powers
I think the 1.5M North Korean who died might disagree that China "almost single handedly defeated the coalition".
China paid a huge price for that war that ended in a stalemate. 200,000 dead and probably the same wounded/missing. That's ~12% of the Chinese military at the time.
By contrast the US lost ~1M dead/wounded in WW2 out of a peak strength of 12M.
Interesting, one reason why the US strategy in Vietnam was limited was the fear of China entering the war. Based on a few accounts I've read, China had zero intention of actually engaging in combat as they were still smarting from the Korean war.
During the 1967 protests in Hong Kong, the British killed enough protestors to quash it and pave the way for a new generation that accepted the situation.
I wonder if that is the game plan China is following? They have given up on the current generation , and are now hoping the next generation will follow them?
This is hidden whataboutism. The 1967 riots had gotten out of control and the rioters were killing people on a regular basis. This has not happened during the 2019-20 protests.
There was no alternative really, China would have just seized HK by force. Jolly good show by the Brits to standby the people of Hong Kong though with this immigration offer. Politicians rarely do the right thing instead of the self-interested thing, but you have to hand it to Johnson's government on this one.
> Jolly good show by the Brits to standby the people of Hong Kong
This is very much a long term, self-interest thing. Britain (just like any other developed country) heavily depends on immigration to not fall into Japanese-style deflation, since nobody wants to have kids any more. Hong-Kongers will probably make for some really good immigrants.
That's what good business is like: win-win. The only downside is the possible retaliation by the CCP. And let's see if they actually let people leave HK en masse, or will they just lock all exits. And let's see how many people will actually want to go, even if you open all the doors for them. Whoever really wanted to leave has probably left quite a while ago.
> Jolly good show by the Brits to standby the people of Hong Kong
Having a new source of immigration when you have just screwed yourself over in attracting European immigrantes due to Brexit is common sense rather than altruism.
> Having a new source of immigration when you have just screwed yourself over in attracting European immigrantes due to Brexit is common sense rather than altruism.
Immigration is not actually something you need to have.
This is a fact that is hated by many people for some reason. There birthrate of Japan is considered low, but they are growing still and the homogeneous society has social harmony, with none of the ills of multiculturalism. It's a trade-off for immigration boosting economies in the short term they don't think is worth it.
My first link is the official statistics compiled by the Japanese government itself (Statistics Bureau, MIC; Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare; Geospatial Information Authority of Japan) and their projections.
Even your link confirms that the population is in decline, just not as quicky as some reporters say.
"While the fertility rate declined from 4.32 in 1949 to a low of 1.26 in 2005, the total population was increasing >>until 2011<< "
"Japan’s Population Decline Not as Rapid as Media Portrays".
It is the same Table 2.2 That still shows a decline and projected decline.
I am not seeing anything that backs up your assertion that
> birthrate of Japan is considered low, but they are growing still
If you still want to assert this as fact then you are going to have to provide a reason that the Japanese government's own statistics and projections over at least the last 5 or so years are incorrect and what should be used as authoritative data instead.
Immigration is a must if you don't have a high enough birthrate to sustain economic growth - because we don't know how to manage a declining economy - and why would you accept that when you have the tool of immigration? Not because there is any fundamental need for a racially or culturally diverse population. Those things seem like they would be beneficial in my opinion, but not required.
I think we are getting to a point in the world where being able to deal with different cultures could start to be seen as a requirement, similar to knowing English in a global world.
I feel like Indians already benefit from this which is why they seem to be making very effective managers.
> Immigration is not actually something you need to have.
It's something the UK needs to have. We don't have enough qualified doctors, nurses, AHPs, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, electronic engineers, (any engineers), architects, etc etc etc.
The steady state for this kind of thing is a very long credentialing process that mostly serves to constrict [word choice is deliberate] entry into the field(s).
In the absence of immigration, assuming the void you describe were perceived, I would expect the UK to accelerate the qualification process for doctors, engineers, nurses, AHPs, engineers, architects, etc., without much affecting the quality of the doctoring / nursing / engineering that got done.
This is, for example, how people were trained to understand spoken Japanese when that became important in World War II. The first attempt involved approaching universities with Japanese programs, who all solemnly declared that learning to understand Japanese was a deliberate process involving multiple years of study. The second attempt involved a course developed for the purpose, not by the universities, that turned out functioning translators in six months.
> without much affecting the quality of the doctoring / nursing
In England "registered nurse" is a protected title. The requirements for being a registered nurse have changed over time. You used to be able to qualify then register, or work then register without getting the qualification. So we have a natural experiment with older nurses in England. Some are qualified and registered, some are unqualified and registered. We see from research that the qualification helps with patient safety.
I hope you can see that there are significant differences between learning a language and treating patients.
> So we have a natural experiment with older nurses in England. Some are qualified and registered, some are unqualified and registered. We see from research that the qualification helps with patient safety.
As described, you see from research that nurses with the qualification are better than nurses in the same cohort without. This is confounded all kinds of different ways; it doesn't come close to establishing that the qualification helped.
(The most obvious confound, though -- say, do nurses with a bachelor's degree outperform nurses with "some college"? -- does tend to suggest that, in the absence of immigration, overall quality levels will go down if the average quality of immigrants is higher than the average quality of natives.)
> I hope you can see that there are significant differences between learning a language and treating patients.
Of course, but I don't see that those differences are relevant here.
They had no choice. Not due to military might (Gibraltar would be just as defenceless against Spanish invasion, and yet it doesn't happen). But simply because holding on to colonies became morally unsustainable.
And the idea at the time was certainly that China would change in the five decades until unification. This was shortly after the end of the cold war, after all, which demonstrated that such change is possible, if not inevitable.
Thinking may have changed on that point. But I wouldn't fully exclude the possibility that China 2047 is more democratic than it is today. Things remain the same, until suddenly they don't.
> This was shortly after the end of the cold war, after all, which demonstrated that such change is possible, if not inevitable.
In 1997 most people wouldn't have thought it would be possible (or at least likely) for China to both be such a powerful country and be such an authoritarian country.
China also wouldn’t have taken this step if a certain other world power hadn’t gone AWOL the last few years.
There’s a reason they decided to ratchet up the pressure on HK the last few years. They figured that in the worst case slapping a specific brand on a few hotels in a few major Chinese cities is a cheap price to pay.
Most people believe there was no choice. Most of the territory was on a lease that was expiring and would have legally returned to China in 1997, splitting the city in two.
What the Brits should have done was to push reforms for democratic governance before they left.
They could have allowed a fully democratic local government that would have survived the handover and been enshrined in the Basic Law.
Instead, all promises of letting HK some democratic autonomy have been broken and stepped on, leading to the current situation.
China didn't like this idea of introducing democratic reforms in HK before the handover but the Brits are still at fault. A colony is a dictature, the British had no interest in having any type of self-governance framework for HK.
In the past 10 years -until the events of last year- there was little outspoken hate for China in HK. Most people were OK with the notion of being Chinese and part of China as long as their rights and freedoms were still honoured.
China could/should have used HK as an experiment to show that its overall control didn't fear some level of local democratic process.
Instead the CCP just showed the opposite: how fragile and fearful the it is of any potential dissent.
They did make some effort, and some of what they put in place was dissolved fairly quickly. Ultimately, no matter what they did, reforms wouldn't have lasted.
> What the Brits should have done was to push reforms for democratic governance before they left.
> the British had no interest in having any type of self-governance
That is false. In the 1960s, the UK did want to introduce democratic reforms.
> China didn't like this idea of introducing democratic reforms in HK
That is the understatement of the year. The correct historic account is that the CCP threatened use of military force, so the UK reacted expediently by backing off.
> But the threat of draining HK is an interesting sort of pressure to put on China.
I suspect that if the trickle shows any sign of becoming a significant exodus, a state of emergency will be called and all HK-ers passports will be cancelled, probably under the pretext of issuing new documents. While the US is shifting it's focus to the Asia Pacific region [0], that's probably hollow posturing. Even if the US had the willingness, what could they do on China's doorstep (beyond bluster) that wouldn't trigger a major military crisis? If Hong Kong is China's Anschluss, will Taiwan be its Poland? I sincerely doubt the current US administration has the diplomatic nouse to out-maneuver China here. The failure to check China is likely to send a shockwave around the world, signalling to allies the truth of what they already suspect - that is, that an increasingly withdrawn and internally focused US will not willingly elect to spend its blood and treasure defending anything but its immediate interests. In Australia, the government has signalled a huge (by our standards) increase in military spending in the next decade, as a consequence of this reality [1].
aside from the fact that China was going to get Hong Kong one way or another I think there was a naive belief in the power of democracy infecting and changing the authoritarian government for the better.
Which I suppose this naive belief is part of the fear that is causing the current situation.
Laws/Declarations etc is moot when Britain took HK as colony through weapon & war, after the 1840 opium war. Remember, the British tried to sell opium to China, the government at the time refused to take the shit the British merchants tried to sell to China, and the British was like you know what, I'll shove this down your throat. It's so weird when people talk about HK, they don't talk about how it all started, or as if they take colony and war as granted.
Good thing China has nuclear these days : )
Yeah, a lot has happened since 1840. Two world wars. During the second of which the British and the USA were allied with China against Japan during the Second Sino-Japanese war. After which of course Mao Zedong came into power and orchestrated the death of upwards of 45 million of his own countrymen through famine and murder.
Great history lesson. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the younger generations in HK suffering their freedoms, and perhaps human rights, being stripped away in 2020.
UK and West+EU hasnt got enough enrichment by the hands of anti whites using open borders + Diversity and multiculturalism to destroy white nations and western freedom
Besides the mass hordes of ISLAMIC INVASION and BLACKS, now we need more asians that will vote for
Taiwan and Hong Kong couldn’t be more different though. Hong Kong legislature (heavily influenced by China) passed this law (edit: this turns out not to be true). Hong Kong is already part of China. You don’t have 200km of water to cross against a country that’s prepared for just that. There’s no TSMC. If it’s a dry run for Taiwan, it’s a really shitty one.
China's legislature amended Hong Kong's constitution to add the new national security law precisely because the Hong Kong legislature - even under heavy influence by mainland China - was unable to pass it.
> The Basic Law says Chinese laws can't be applied in Hong Kong unless they are listed in a section called Annex III - there are already a few listed there, mostly uncontroversial and around foreign policy.
These laws can be introduced by decree - which means they bypass the city's parliament. Critics say the introduction of the law this way amounts to a breach of the "one country, two systems" principle, which is so important to Hong Kong - but clearly it is technically possible to do this.
This is because Article 18 of the Basic Law of Hong Kong allows China to promulgate certain laws related to national security. Taiwan doesn't have this.
Taiwan is much harder, but I was thinking more about precedent: if there is not much international blowback, that’s going to tell them that there won’t be major consequences if they try to ratchet Taiwan into their orbit. The U.S. provided a big shield to Taiwan for years but China has built up a lot and Trump has been ceding power as quickly as he can. It’s not clear to me that the other countries in the region or the EU would set a line and hold it for very long. The international businesses acquiescing to expansion in Hong Kong are probably setting the tone.
Remember, this almost certainly wouldn’t just be a straight-up invasion. I’d assume something more like funding pro-China political parties, expanding business and other ties, and then at some point an incident involving a friendly politician asking for help which never leaves. TSMC is important but just one business and not one many people are going to go to war over when business is going to continue mostly as usual.
"US provided big shield to Taiwan...trump has been ceding power as quickly as he can".
This is utterly false. Trump has further strengthened ties with Taiwan compared to the previous administrations.
Taiwan is currently its own independent country, regardless of what China believes.
Unless something seriously changes, such as a full scale invasion by China, in which hundreds of thousands get killed on both sides, the situation is not even close to the same thing.
In the last 40 years, while China lifted a billion people out of poverty, what evil did they commit that is even remotely comparable to what the US did in, say, Iraq?
Man, good thing you limited it to the last 40 years and not the last 60, where they killed tens of millions due to both insane incompetence and malice.
The point is you are starting the comparison at the most convenient point for your argument.
75 years ago the United States was part of the allied powers that helped put an end to a genocidal dictator with world domination plans. 200 years ago the United States was a major participator in the global slave trade and actively waging war and committing genocide against the ingenious people of North America.
No ethnic or national group of people have been virtuous throughout history. No ethnic or national group of people have been evil throughout history. Trying to cut history into a small slice in order to draw a moral contrast is misleading and ignorant at best.
I assume you're referring to ditching the communist system, right? which under Mao was responsible for 20-46 million deaths from starvation (that # is from wikipedia).
Unfortunately, while they've ditched the economic part of communism, they've retained the dictatorial part, while moving towards the vision in 1984--a vision that seemed absurdly impractical when I read the book back in the 60s. But AI is now making it possible for the Chinese overloads to implement.
Yeah, Xi double-plus good. And I'm sure Winnie will increase the chocolate ration next week.
I fail to see how the "dictatorial part" by itself is communist. If you aren't economically communist, how can you be communist when communism is an economic system? It would be like claiming a country that got rid of investments and capital gains and private ownership of industry is still capitalist because it is a political republic, despite the fact that you can be capitalist under any political system.
Suppressing the Tianenmen Square uprising. From a UK diplomatic cable describing the scene:
> STUDENTS LINKED ARMS BUT WERE MOWN DOWN INCLUDING SOLDIERS. APCS THEN RAN OVER BODIES TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO MAKE QUOTE PIE UNQUOTE AND REMAINS COLLECTED BY BULLDOZER. REMAINS INCINERATED AND THEN HOSED DOWN DRAINS.
Say what you will about the US, we still haven’t run citizens over with tanks and hosed them down drains.
That’s an odd distinction. Perhaps you judge your country firstly by how it treats its citizens, because you want to be treated well. But if it’s not your country, what’s the difference? Perhaps you live in a country that provides for your well-being by slaughtering and plundering all around the world. In that case your country is rather horrible. Objectively, the US actions in Iraq were far worse than China in Tianamen Square. In any case, China is obviously a horrible country (Uyghur treatment is just one example).
Excellent, you may want to bone up on your knowledge of the United States economy and learn about its current and past far reaching surveillance laws and past intelligence work that has led to the assassination or jailing of many of its own citizens. I'm not defending China, but saying USA is any better is in my opinion, not living in the reality of the majority of the citizens of USA.
The united states is, on balance, a rather stupid country. We re-elected a dolt that invaded Iraq on the premise they caused 911 when they obviously didnt. That said, China poses a unique threat: a panopticon, freedom supressing government, with next to no option for change, and trying to expand its borders. Scary.
There are many around the world and in USA who would say the exact same about the USA and I'm sure China says the exact same about USA.
I personally see no difference between the two except they're both fighting to be the world superpower and China is really stepping in to take that role from a USA in distress.
Hmmm... US invades Japan, turns it from a militant authoritarian system into a democracy, then gives it independence. Invades, then turns Philippines into a sovereign nation. Same with South Korea. Same with Western Europe post-WW2.
The U.S. has explicitly suppressed plenty of other governments before, both for ideological and economic reasons. Read about Salvatore Allende, who was elected via a democratic process in 1970s Chile on a socialist reform platform and then was subsequently overthrown and killed, via suicide after being surrounded, with heavy involvement via the U.S. CIA.
China has not typically gone beyond their own historical borders, and when they have, it is miniscule compared to how the U.S. has.
The intended point of my comment was to provide a counterpoint to yours. The things you listed in either comment do not absolve the U.S. from its vast influence via warfare for its own ideological and economic gains, which is what your original comment that I replied to was trying to do.
Frankly it's not the business of the USA to "turn a system into a democracy". Every government has and can fall at the hands of its own people if needed. You cited two viciously deadly and brutal examples of imperialism and I don't think you're making a great point.
There is a difference. You can make fun of Trump/McConnel all day long, and no one cares because it is our free speech. Try putting a Xi Jinping blimp up in Beijing and see how fast you get arrested.
> Americans didn't kill a million Iraqi people, the taliban and loads of other groups did.
The Taliban killed approximately zero Iraqis (you may be confusing al-Qaeda with the Taliban, and the group that after the war temporarily adopted the name “al-Qaeda in Iraq”, before becoming the Islamic State—that erupted into a major force because of the American mismanagement of the post-invasion occupation, most notably the almost entirely unmanaged demobilization of the security services—with al-Qaeda itself. Americans killed a lot themselves, as well as launching an unprovoked war of aggression which produced the context in which many others were killed beyond those Americans killed directly. But all of those deaths are America's fault and responsibility, even those that are also someone else’s fault and responsibility.
Taliban moved into Iraq after Saddam's fall. Yes I do agree that it was Bush administration's fault for toppling him and letting the mayhem loose, but to say that Americans killed a million iraqis is disingeuous.
Hard to compare these two scenarios. Look, I’m not arguing that US officials throughout the course of history have been perfect. Kent State was an atrocity, no question.
But anyone with a gun can pull the trigger. It takes an enormous amount of coordination to uniformly run over people with tanks, burn their bodies, and flush them down drains.
The incidents you’ve linked are undoubtedly dark chapters, but they are not comparable to what we’ve seen in China.
I would never say that the US is an authoritarian state on par with the vileness of the PRC. But your specific claim was that we’ve never done to our own citizens what happened to the protesters at Tiananmen, which I now guess hinges on how coordinated the killings were. I think this is historically inaccurate, absent engaging in this kind of special pleading.
Think about it. You had troops in China that were ready and willing to not only kill their countrymen, but also desecrate their dead bodies and discard them in an unimaginably cold manner.
Contrast that with Kent State, Jackson State, and other places where troops were deployed and the situation escalated.
The ultimate difference here is that it’s perfectly legal and acceptable for us to talk about what happened at Kent state. The events are not in dispute.
China, on the other hand, jails people for talking about Tiananmen Square. To acknowledge the existence of such heinous acts is itself a crime in that country.
The fact that we can sit here and argue about this without fear of going to prison is itself proof that these situations, and countries, are incomparable.
It’s not even just that. It’s that the government indicted five guardsman at the times, but couldn’t secure convictions. A civil trial ended in settlement. Fifty years later, we’re still talking about four deaths.
Our USA runs a larger prison labor colony far larger than any real or imaginary Soviet Gulag. Get real real. Brits are filthy racist losers who deserve every harm that comes their way. Narcotics peddlers. They would be wise to behead their landed "royalty" and catch up to "modernity."
Parent obviously cares about the truth, evidenced by their references. It is amazing to me how so many freely thinking individuals can completely disregard the importance of free speech. How many of your references would be visible to a Chinese citizen? Doesn't the fact that we can discuss the US government's misdeeds on their own soil mean anything to you?
The French wisely censor American broadcast "media." Broadcast lies never delineates "free speech." I went to Harvard. I have written paychecks for former NSA employees. I have friends and family at the World Bank, Reuters and NYT. They are paid handsomely to lie, with "talking points" dictated by CIA at Langley.
Really? So CBS News apparently didn't get paid by CIA when they expose Abu Ghraib scandal [0], and NYT must have forgotten about that as well when they partnered with the Guardian to publish Edward Snowden's leak [1]. Those are two of the biggest reveals of the last two decades.
Talking about Snowden, I have always wondered why there's never been a Chinese whistleblower. Nobody working in Chinese intelligence has the courage or conscience, or they have no way to let the world know?
Thank you for bringing up Kent State. That event is taught in history classes all over the country as an example of something we did wrong, and desperately want to never repeat.
Contrast this with Tiananmen Square: Beijing does everything it can to prevent its citizens knowing about it, and is all to happy to cultivate a reputation that they would gladly do it again today.
As far as I can tell this is completely false and none of the eyewitnesses have corroborated that account. The famous photo of "Tank Man" provides evidence of a case where this didn't happen.
There are a number of people involved in the protests who have left China and provided accounts. At least one person wrote a book, although there is no English translation as far as I know.
The British government has itself killed quite a lot of civilians and is hardly a reliable source considering their history with China.
> The famous photo of "Tank Man" provides evidence of a case where this didn't happen.
I disagree, that photo could’ve easily been taken before the killing started. The fact that tank man’s identity or whereabouts are unknown provides evidence that he was probably killed in the demonstrations.
> The British government has itself killed quite a lot of civilians and is hardly a reliable source considering their history with China.
This is completely fallacious. The fact that Britain has killed civilians has no bearing on their truth-telling here. You’re essentially arguing that no country is capable of telling the truth because it’s not realistic to name a country that hasn’t killed civilians at some point, no?
Please read the article I linked, it was the day after the square was cleared and was witnessed by a number of people. There is a quote from one of the leaders of the protests saying that he saw many people blocking tanks. He did not say he saw tanks running over anyone.
I do not think in general governments are a good source of facts and even in the best circumstances most seem incapable of telling the truth. The British government reporting on China is nowhere near the best circumstances. The account you quoted now serves as propaganda for people who want to believe that China is uniquely monstrous. A number of people have quoted it on HN and it is at odds with eyewitness accounts.
Even the Chinese government admits it killed hundreds of people during the protest. Possibly the number is over 1k, but 10k deaths is not credible nor is the vivid account.
You seem to be trying really hard to steer the conversation away from China.
Yes, the US has done plenty of things that are wrong. We talk about them frequently, including here on HN. But this conversation is about China oppressing the people of Hong Kong. Do you mind letting us discuss that, without distracting us with "But the US!!!!!" all over the place?
2) it's debatable whether "1 billion were lifted out of poverty", and if it was, the US financed that
3) the US was asked by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to defend their countries. Iraq was told in advance what would happen if they used aggression (European diplomats said the opposite in order to make future arms sales)
4) China deliberately infected the world with corona, as reported.
Probably many undocumented due to the secretive nature of their government. The threat China poses far outweighs any good they've accomplished recently. Old, unaccountable men with absolute power and surveillance of over 20 percent of the human species is not a good predicate for the 21st century.
> Probably many undocumented due to the secretive nature of their government.
Are you saying the Chinese government could occupy a foreign country, commit war crimes against them, and kill over a million people without anyone knowing?
Americans didn't kill those Iraqis. Please stop spreading lies. China, on the other hand has no qualms about committing a large scale genocide against not just non-hans, but hans as well.
Xinjiang? And it's not "in the last 40 years", it's right now.
It's not just the Uighurs in Xinjiang, either. It's the Christians. It's Hong Kong. It's trying to shut down anybody, planet wide, who speaks anything negative about China or Xi.
You realize that as long as there are humans there will always be evil. I can't think of a single society in history that hasn't committed some form of evil.
Black jails everywhere where dissidents are tortured. Religious prisoners harvested alive. Repeated invasions of Vietnam. Tienanmen Square massacre and the subsequent rounding up of a generation in concentration camps. Ethnic cleaning of the Uyghurs. Stamping out of Tibet's culture and media blackout of the mass self-immolation epidemic. Imposition of the worlds worst surveillance-state. The CCP is not China.
My father was a veteran of the vietnam war, an immoral war the US fought against the people of vietnam. I pray the Vietnamese nation can hold the line against China.
Maybe, immoral, but it’s more complicated than that. The US lost the war, but half a century later 95% of Vietnamese believe that “people are better off under a free market” and three quarters have a positive view of the US.
The grandparent comment extended the conversation to all of China's actions. I think it's relevant to discuss the horrors the U.S. has enacted upon the world, if only for a practical reason.
That reason is that to understand how to solve problems elsewhere, you first need to understand how to solve the same type of problems in your neck of the woods. The U.S. spent the latter half of the 20th century and has continued since then exporting its way of doing things through military action. For example, I recently learned of Salvador Allende. He was a president of Chile that won a democratic election based upon his socialist campaign. He said what he was going to do and was elected by the people. The U.S. tried for years to thwart his election, and when he won, the U.S. directly supported, if not organized and enacted, a coup that ended in success, for the coup, and Allende taking his own life upon being surrounded. This is sickening. How can the U.S. and its people in good conscience decry other countries' actions when we do the same thing to other countries beyond our own borders? The U.S. still holds prisons that imprisons foreigners without charge and without cause. How can the U.S. decry China for imprisoning its own citizens? I am not supporting anything here. I am merely trying to explain that things matter and are connected, and you cannot view things with tunnel vision.
The other reason is one of perception. If the U.S. wants change in China and elsewhere, one needs to understand the political and social repercussions of one's own actions. This is called if you want to talk the talk, you must walk the walk. The U.S. primarily talks the talk while the rest of the world sees how the U.S. does not walk the walk. The U.S. does the very things it decries in another countries. This is very harmful.
> That reason is that to understand how to solve problems elsewhere, you first need to understand how to solve the same type of problems in your neck of the woods.
No, not really. It is perfectly possible to discuss many different issues without having to think of an answer for numerous X, Y, or Z issues that someone else brings up in order to distract you from the point.
The issue is that whenever people do this, they almost always aren't interested in solving the issue. Instead they are looking to dismiss the problem that you brought up, by using whataboutism.
This is the most common way for someone to try and get you to stop caring about an issue. There will always be an excuse that someone can throw at you, so that they can dismiss the problem that you brought up.
> This is very harmful.
The harmful thing is instead the people who are trying to prevent the problems from being solved, by distracting people from the things that they bring up.
> How can the U.S. and its people in good conscience decry other countries' actions
If bad things are happening, I want those bad thing to stop. And I am never going to accept someone pointing to a different bad thing, in order to defend against some other bad thing from happening.
Less bad things should be the goal. And this strategy of whataboutism just distracts from that.
I think you're throwing out whataboutism in a sort of ironic way. It would maybe (see below) be whataboutism if I was Chinese. I'm a U.S. citizen. I am not deflecting criticism against myself, the U.S., or China. I'm not deflecting any criticism at all, so nothing I said is whataboutism. I am simply asking people to think about and consider the problems and practical ways of understanding how to solve them.
You cannot simply dismiss hypocrisy as whataboutism. Apparently you and everyone else throwing around this term would dismiss the common phrase of "look inward first" as whataboutism.
> I am simply asking people to think about and consider the problems and practical ways of understanding how to solve them.
Thats fine. But if you are going to do that, what you should do is say "Yes, the issue you brought up is definitely bad, and I agree with you that it should be solved, and you are 100% right about it. Also, here is another problem that should also be solved".
If you are going to 100% agree with me, and say that I am right for bringing up a certain problem, and also point to a related problem, thats fine.
But if you don't say "Yes you are right. The thing you brought up is very bad, and it should stop", then it comes off as an attempt to dismiss or delegitimize the very important problem that someone previously brought up.
So great. Fine. Maybe the other thing you brought should also be solved. But that does not at all dismiss the original issue and the original issue should still be solved, and the original points that were made are correct.
I am still 100% completely justified, in every way, to bring up the original problem, and if someone is saying that the original problem that was brought up should not be solved, then that person is still completely wrong, regardless of the fact that you brought up a different problem that maybe should be solved.
Posting like this will get you banned here regardless of how wrong another commenter is or you feel they are. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules from now on.
China lifted a billion people out of poverty after putting them there in the first place.
The various incarnations of the dictature that is the CCP have killed millions of its own people through labour camps and unchallenged economic policies that literally resulted in famines and poverty.
But that's not the point. Comparing the evils that each country has done is a distraction from the current topic. It's not the US giving lessons here, it's people like you and me saying that the very present behaviour of China in Hong Kong is unacceptable.
Did it really put them there in the first place? China was pretty dirt fucking poor beforehand, consisting mainly of subsidence farmers. Yeah their government was certainly a bunch of bastards, but they were already poor as fuck.
The increase in quality of life of millions of people in China is probably civilizations greatest recent achievement, and something makes many many people far from China happy and optimistic for the future. You are correct in pointing out that there are many powerful people in the big democracies, who crave authoritarian power and wield it brutally when they can, but they are resisted, though by fewer people than we would like to admit.
It is starting to seem that in many places authoritarians are consolidating power, in democracies and in China. Some people are concerned by this because they see it encroaching on their power and privilege. Others fear first for the people of China, and then for all of us, that a rise in authoritarian power in China will fuel its rise everywhere.
Seeing all this happen, you have to ask - how much were the people lifted out of poverty, and how much did they climb out when Deng Xiaopeng took a little of the pressure off their necks
Nationalistic flamewar is not ok here, let alone drive-by flamebait like this that is as grandiose as it is cheap. We ban accounts that post like this.
No, that's not because we're defending China or are secret communist agents. We're defending HN against vandalism. Not to mention arson.
Americans are the most isolated, ahistorical and heavily propagandized humans on earth. Post-imperial Brits can't feed themselves. So says Brit philosopher John Gray, one of the architects of Thatcherism. I personally helped destroy the Apartheid govt South African govt, from Harvard, working for/with Unitarians, and met Desmond Tutu in the process. I fully expect horrifying and unspeakable Karmic retributions to befall the spawn of post-Imperial racist Brits and their pretenders. The Chinese enjoy a post-colonial unity we colonial peoples (who are not a people) cannot imagine, with more historical neighbors than any other country and a longer continuous written history than any other peoples. Americans suffer Stockholm Syndrome and widespread infantilism. Anticipate their exponential sufferings.
Looking at statistics the murder rate was 170 a year between 1948-1989 under the South Africa govt you helped bring down. Since 1994 that number is 24,206. The brutal “necklacing” method of execution itself was pioneered by Mandelas ANC.
You may fault the 'racist' Brits, but they put an end to Shaka Zulus 500 mile genocide perimeter and they attempted to civilise many peoples whose languages lacked basic concepts such as time, future & present. It's telling that you use Trotskys perversion of language to slander them.
Aided by infiltrators and agitators such as yourself, what came after didn't seem to value the virtues of honesty, tolerance and friendship between peoples the Brits were taught. Chinese culture regard higher those who use dishonesty to gain advantage.
I will conceed though, it really was a great strategy the commies employed to exacerbate splits in the peoples, weaponise race then arm the pressure groups. Not only did it ensure governance became untenable, it also resulted in mass genocide including Mau Mau, Zanzibar and Ugandan genocides and the loss of any hope of the conservation of the majestic African fauna [1].
China now spoils and pillages Africa on a scale Rhodes would never have dreamt of. Although civilisation lost I guess for them, it was worth it.
Does anyone follow British domestic politics? They can't stand Polish (et al) immigrants amongst their numbers, much less browner skinned Indians and muslims. Brits are an increasingly irrelevant, racist, and post-Imperial bitter and reckless island nation (the size of Morocco) that can't feed itself. As an American citizen, I advocate a 2nd 1776, whereupon we set their miserable Brit "ship of state" adrift forever. Our future is better secured by a fully reciprocal "nationalism" that does not sanction racist jingoism. Consult John Mearsheimer for broader exposition of a fruitful and respectful reciprocal nationalism without pretenses to "universalism."
There are too many generalisations here to take any of your points seriously.
Racism exists in all countries, not just Britain. It may be worse or better in Britain than elsewhere but it's certainly not alone.
If your point is that the potential influx of HKers will create social tensions and feed into racism then I would agree, but that's not specific to the UK. Having 3M people suddenly popping up on your doorstep can be a challenge.
However, while I hope that many HKers take on the opportunity to get a real British passport, I know most will do this as a backup plan. They will funnel their families and finances out of HK (to the benefit of the UK) but still live in HK for the most part.
Most HKer know they can't just show-up in the UK and be successful there as they are in HK. Some will enjoy some opportunities and will manage to build or rebuild their success but most have their lives strongly anchored in the economic fabric of HK, and that's not easy to transpose elsewhere.
I lived in Ukraine under complete currency collapse. I hope for the collapse of the British pound. Make no mistake. I'm a Christian. "Those who live by the sword, die by the sword." - Matthew 16:52. I pray for and celebrate the deaths of mercenary soldiers, drug addicts, drunk drivers, liars for money. I celebrate the deaths of imperial conquistadors and praise the lives of in situ historical peoples on their own lands. We're NOT a team. My passport remains intact. I have materially and forcefully and successfully contributed to the violent demise of South African apartheid "whites," at Harvard, and working for and with Unitarians. Know the frames of our dialog. I am a moralist. Play win-win, or lose.
That is not in HK, let's be clear with the facts. And neither is it an imminent possibility that people in HK are about to be subjected to that crime. Until China marches across the border.
A market for improvement in food and you think china is doing good? China is a literal welfare state that relies on the east of China. Most intake wealth while the East actually generates it, the Pearl River Delta is also where most of the economic progress occurs.
I'll help contribute. The food you talk of -- sure you may have some good food at the top of the scale, but for an every day person's budget, food options in the UK pale in comparison with most any country in Asia.
As for Brexit, the additional economic fallout (already, and coming) from that self-inflicted problem will be worse than the general downturn for most other places.
Read George Friedman of STATFOR fame and fortune. Brits are in the trouble they deserve. Your affectations, restaurant reviews and completely fake "team seeking identities" are completely irrelevant. You [Ed. spelling] and what what armies? https://geopoliticalfutures.com/the-geopolitics-of-britain/
I lived in China since 2008, and in between also in Hong Kong for a few years (2013-2014). Hongkongers are absolutely different people, and even if there is be a formal annexation by China, cultural assimilation will take a few generations of unrest at least. It was always a very different feeling stepping on the East Railway after crossing the border in Shenzhen. The phone alive with all the missed Gmail messages and Telegram chats.
For me there is no Hong Kong anymore. There is Xianggang city, Guangdong province.
242 comments
[ 79.1 ms ] story [ 790 ms ] threadFrankly, I don’t know how anyone has the stomach to sit behind a heavy machine gun and turn 200 mothers’ sons into rotting meat. I’d probably reach for my pistol.
Not that the PLA likely uses the same tactics as they did in the 1950s.
Freedom is extremely expensive in terms of blood required to achieve it, so I'm always amazed at how easily people are convinced to give it up one inch at a time until it's all gone again.
Just check your nextdoor app, or facebook: humans love telling other humans how to behave, if you give them force, they will use it.
And of course, unwanted means that for the "clients" there is at the very least a threat of violence against them (or their kids/family/...) in the majority (for kids VERY large majority) of cases.
In some countries, "the social sector" is the biggest public sector, in all countries it's very, very big. Including the US, but at least here it doesn't exceed education or the medical sector in size.
Of course, these don't let themselves be stopped by the longstanding research pointing out that without client's cooperation (and of course unwanted means no cooperation), there is little to no point to treatment, and very significant downsides. Which is why horror stories like this happen:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noa_Pothoven#:~:text=3%20Publi....
Such horror stories are anecdotal evidence. The real proof comes from large scale statistical studies:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/s2215-0366(19)30180-4
Or, for the youth case:
https://sci-hub.se/10.1257/aer.97.5.1583
What a truly, extra-ordinary document on the human condition. Coming up with that text in that era..I wish I had that kind of insight and wisdom.
The idea of HK as separate from China is just over.
Sure, they agreed to transition period until 2050 or so... But when that was signed HK was a significant part of the Chinese economy.
Even though HK is still significant, it's been eclipsed by China itself, and China can afford to kill (part) of HK to finally end this humiliation, as they see it.
China objects strongly. It says these are Chinese citizens and Britain ceased to have any claim over the territory decades ago.
Of course since Britain's offer exists only on paper (there is no mechanism proposed by which a typical person in Hong Kong should actually make use of the offer to leave) the Chinese objection likewise extends only to paper.
It'd be like Crimea all over again, except China could have a legal argument that it's theirs instead of just claiming soldiers are vacationing there.
I don't see China invading the west coast of the USA without a fight. A really big fight. And for what?
Because that’s exactly what’s happening with HK now and people here are saying it was a dumb idea. Why repeat it?
Note that Puerto Ricans are fully citizens. The island itself doesn’t have representation in Congress because it’s not a state. (Which is a legal thing that’s distinct from the people who live in the state! The “United States” isn’t just a name, it has legal significance.)
Not many special "brilliant entrepreneurs". Just regular ole entrepreneurs taking advantage of the specific spot HK was in, and the specific relationship between Britain and China for global trade.
Merely bring the same people elsewhere would accomplish no great miracle.
It's not like taking SV-based VCs and programmers into e.g. Oklahome (where they'd just make a new hotspot, since their skills are carried with them).
It's more like taking the people in the tourist industry of Miami and moving them to Maine. It just wont work as well, since it was all about location in the first place...
A crapload of capital tends to statistically attract the best programmers. Some of the biggest problems to solve/employers being there, ditto.
In other words, my comment wasn't about born and raised SV VC/programmers. It was about VC/programmers working in SV.
SV-based entrepreneurs are already going to places like Austin and Portland. It takes time.
It would quicker if we get 3 million people situated in an abstract region of US since the critical mass to get the ball rolling would already have been achieved. It would be a challenge, but not for the reasons you've dilineated.
But that's my point. The success of HK businesses also relies on the location (and it's special status).
I think these types of regions can be created elsewhere but I totally see your point.
So this new territory could undercut every US-based port on tariffs, then ship everything to the USA consumer anyway? I don't see anyone agreeing to that deal.
It's quite amusing the hypothetical lengths people will go to "caring" but still straight up open about not letting foreigners into their actual country.
In practice nothing the US has done has hurt the CCP. If anything, it has strengthened them domestically.
The major actions the Trump administration has taken against China are: 1) Tariffs which only served to hurt American farmers, considering there was hardly any drop off in Chinese exports to the US (and that’s on paper, since a lot of Chinese exports are now hidden as Vietnamese exports, etc) but significant drop offs in American exports to China. 2) A long sustained battle against 1 Chinese company. While Huawei is suffering, the likes of Xiaomi, etc are still doing just fine. 3) Whining about the nomenclature around SARS-COV-2.
On the flip side, the administration dismantled TPP, which was a decade+ long effort spanning multiple US administrations, and nearly every non Chinese country on the Pacific, that would have actually dealt a huge blow to Chinese bullying by providing companies doing manufacturing in China much more attractive alternatives in the countries surrounding China.
I do not consider a +20% drop in Chinese exports to the US as "hardly any drop".
Trump has put an end to e-packet which was killing US small-scale businesses: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2018/10/trump...
TPP was a nightmare opposed both by the left and right - and even by Hillary Clinton - at-least formally in her campaign. Only corporate shareholders supported it. It even pushed copyright terms further! See https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2012/08/whats-wrong-tpp
On the bright side, I wonder what good things this will do for the UK. I doubt many of these people will vote Torry.
Unlike Trump, Johnson has done a good job pulling in minority voters. About half the Indian MPs in the U.K. Parliament are Tories.
Your comment is particularly inexplicable given that Labour just ran someone who wants to put a call for collectivizing property back in Labour’s platform.
Cuban Floridians who came of age after the Cold War have very different politics. https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-cuban-ameri...
Vietnamese Americans: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/vietnamese-americans-ar...
Firstly this would bring UK a lot of respect from the world community as any country prepared to stand up to the rule of law will always look good.
Next, before China started messing with HK it was the financial hub of Asia, but as China starts to erode the rule of law in HK that title will most likely move on to Singapore.
This then means the UK has a great opportunity as it then means they will most likely see an influx of:
1. Well educated HK citizens
2. HK citizens bringing in their wealth (some of whom will no doubt be super rich) which is always good as it helps to build up the national wealth.
Surely the super rich already have Cyprus passports? This doesn’t really seem like a meaningful offer for the rich, they’d have no trouble with immigration anyway.
And, with rayiner I suspect that many will remember which party opened the door for them, even decades from now.
There is no fixing this, but I appreciate the effort by the British. Many will not want to leave, understandably. But the threat of draining HK is an interesting sort of pressure to put on China..
A few decades before negotiations began between China and the UK, India seized the Portuguese colony of Goa[1]. Nobody acted on behalf of the Portuguese. With the USA having just a few years beforehand suffered defeat in the Vietnam war, and extremely unlikely to have the public support for another land war in Asia, but this time against a vastly stronger opponent for a relatively much less important parcel of land, There is little reason to believe anyone would have, or could have seriously contested China seizing Hong Kong.
Consider as well, during the Korean war, A China still badly crippled by World War 2 almost single handedly defeated an entire coalition of western powers, including a USA at the zenith of their conventional arms power.
The declaration was an alternative to a military annexation of Hong Kong by the Chinese.
The British probably acquiesced more than they had to, and didn't guarantee enough rights for Hong Kong citizens (especially the really lame part about not giving them a path to citizenship in the UK proper), but make no mistake, the alternative to the declaration wasn't Hong Kong remaining a part of the UK, it was Chinese invasion.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Goa
Isn't that because China got the drop on the western powers?
Meaning what exactly?
China did do a good job of attacking where the UN wasn't expecting as well.
I think the 1.5M North Korean who died might disagree that China "almost single handedly defeated the coalition".
China paid a huge price for that war that ended in a stalemate. 200,000 dead and probably the same wounded/missing. That's ~12% of the Chinese military at the time.
By contrast the US lost ~1M dead/wounded in WW2 out of a peak strength of 12M.
Interesting, one reason why the US strategy in Vietnam was limited was the fear of China entering the war. Based on a few accounts I've read, China had zero intention of actually engaging in combat as they were still smarting from the Korean war.
The troops sacrificed were also mostly former Nationalist units from the civil war that ended the year before.
I wonder if that is the game plan China is following? They have given up on the current generation , and are now hoping the next generation will follow them?
Not to worry, they'll still have a chance to turn it into Windrush Generation later on.
This is very much a long term, self-interest thing. Britain (just like any other developed country) heavily depends on immigration to not fall into Japanese-style deflation, since nobody wants to have kids any more. Hong-Kongers will probably make for some really good immigrants.
That's what good business is like: win-win. The only downside is the possible retaliation by the CCP. And let's see if they actually let people leave HK en masse, or will they just lock all exits. And let's see how many people will actually want to go, even if you open all the doors for them. Whoever really wanted to leave has probably left quite a while ago.
Having a new source of immigration when you have just screwed yourself over in attracting European immigrantes due to Brexit is common sense rather than altruism.
Immigration is not actually something you need to have.
I don't know where you are getting your information that the population of Japan is still growing. Japan's population is already declining.
http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/pdf/2017all.pdf "Statistical Handbook of Japan" Table 2.2
https://www.populationpyramid.net/japan/2020/ ( https://www.populationpyramid.net/sources )
https://www.worldometers.info/demographics/japan-demographic...
https://qz.com/1295721/the-japanese-population-is-shrinking-...
https://www.nippon.com/en/japan-data/h00705/ "Japan’s Population Falls for Ninth Straight Year"
https://www.ft.com/content/29d594fa-5cf2-11e9-9dde-7aedca0a0... "Japan’s population decline accelerates despite record immigration"
Even your link confirms that the population is in decline, just not as quicky as some reporters say.
"While the fertility rate declined from 4.32 in 1949 to a low of 1.26 in 2005, the total population was increasing >>until 2011<< "
"Japan’s Population Decline Not as Rapid as Media Portrays".
I just noticed I could replace 2017 with 2019 in the official statistics link and did so, resulting in http://www.stat.go.jp/english/data/handbook/pdf/2019all.pdf
It is the same Table 2.2 That still shows a decline and projected decline.
I am not seeing anything that backs up your assertion that
> birthrate of Japan is considered low, but they are growing still
If you still want to assert this as fact then you are going to have to provide a reason that the Japanese government's own statistics and projections over at least the last 5 or so years are incorrect and what should be used as authoritative data instead.
I feel like Indians already benefit from this which is why they seem to be making very effective managers.
It's something the UK needs to have. We don't have enough qualified doctors, nurses, AHPs, civil engineers, mechanical engineers, electrical engineers, electronic engineers, (any engineers), architects, etc etc etc.
In the absence of immigration, assuming the void you describe were perceived, I would expect the UK to accelerate the qualification process for doctors, engineers, nurses, AHPs, engineers, architects, etc., without much affecting the quality of the doctoring / nursing / engineering that got done.
This is, for example, how people were trained to understand spoken Japanese when that became important in World War II. The first attempt involved approaching universities with Japanese programs, who all solemnly declared that learning to understand Japanese was a deliberate process involving multiple years of study. The second attempt involved a course developed for the purpose, not by the universities, that turned out functioning translators in six months.
In England "registered nurse" is a protected title. The requirements for being a registered nurse have changed over time. You used to be able to qualify then register, or work then register without getting the qualification. So we have a natural experiment with older nurses in England. Some are qualified and registered, some are unqualified and registered. We see from research that the qualification helps with patient safety.
I hope you can see that there are significant differences between learning a language and treating patients.
As described, you see from research that nurses with the qualification are better than nurses in the same cohort without. This is confounded all kinds of different ways; it doesn't come close to establishing that the qualification helped.
(The most obvious confound, though -- say, do nurses with a bachelor's degree outperform nurses with "some college"? -- does tend to suggest that, in the absence of immigration, overall quality levels will go down if the average quality of immigrants is higher than the average quality of natives.)
> I hope you can see that there are significant differences between learning a language and treating patients.
Of course, but I don't see that those differences are relevant here.
And the idea at the time was certainly that China would change in the five decades until unification. This was shortly after the end of the cold war, after all, which demonstrated that such change is possible, if not inevitable.
Thinking may have changed on that point. But I wouldn't fully exclude the possibility that China 2047 is more democratic than it is today. Things remain the same, until suddenly they don't.
In 1997 most people wouldn't have thought it would be possible (or at least likely) for China to both be such a powerful country and be such an authoritarian country.
There’s a reason they decided to ratchet up the pressure on HK the last few years. They figured that in the worst case slapping a specific brand on a few hotels in a few major Chinese cities is a cheap price to pay.
Did they do that?
Everything that has happened in HK so far conforms to the HK constitution as well as Beijing’s, whether it meets the spirit of the declaration or not
What the Brits should have done was to push reforms for democratic governance before they left. They could have allowed a fully democratic local government that would have survived the handover and been enshrined in the Basic Law. Instead, all promises of letting HK some democratic autonomy have been broken and stepped on, leading to the current situation.
China didn't like this idea of introducing democratic reforms in HK before the handover but the Brits are still at fault. A colony is a dictature, the British had no interest in having any type of self-governance framework for HK.
In the past 10 years -until the events of last year- there was little outspoken hate for China in HK. Most people were OK with the notion of being Chinese and part of China as long as their rights and freedoms were still honoured.
China could/should have used HK as an experiment to show that its overall control didn't fear some level of local democratic process. Instead the CCP just showed the opposite: how fragile and fearful the it is of any potential dissent.
[edit: spelling]
> the British had no interest in having any type of self-governance
That is false. In the 1960s, the UK did want to introduce democratic reforms.
> China didn't like this idea of introducing democratic reforms in HK
That is the understatement of the year. The correct historic account is that the CCP threatened use of military force, so the UK reacted expediently by backing off.
I suspect that if the trickle shows any sign of becoming a significant exodus, a state of emergency will be called and all HK-ers passports will be cancelled, probably under the pretext of issuing new documents. While the US is shifting it's focus to the Asia Pacific region [0], that's probably hollow posturing. Even if the US had the willingness, what could they do on China's doorstep (beyond bluster) that wouldn't trigger a major military crisis? If Hong Kong is China's Anschluss, will Taiwan be its Poland? I sincerely doubt the current US administration has the diplomatic nouse to out-maneuver China here. The failure to check China is likely to send a shockwave around the world, signalling to allies the truth of what they already suspect - that is, that an increasingly withdrawn and internally focused US will not willingly elect to spend its blood and treasure defending anything but its immediate interests. In Australia, the government has signalled a huge (by our standards) increase in military spending in the next decade, as a consequence of this reality [1].
The times, they are a changin'.
[0] https://asia.nikkei.com/Politics/International-relations/Tho...
[1] https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-06-30/australia-unveils-10-...
Which I suppose this naive belief is part of the fear that is causing the current situation.
Great history lesson. I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the younger generations in HK suffering their freedoms, and perhaps human rights, being stripped away in 2020.
Yeah, good thing China "has nuclear". /s
Besides the mass hordes of ISLAMIC INVASION and BLACKS, now we need more asians that will vote for
- wealth redistrubtion
- GST/VAT
- Welfare
- Pandering to old people/disabled/women
China's legislature amended Hong Kong's constitution to add the new national security law precisely because the Hong Kong legislature - even under heavy influence by mainland China - was unable to pass it.
You are correct to point out that force was not used (n/m the divisions of tanks that have been on the border), and Taiwan is different.
You are in disagreement with the BBC on this point:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-52765838
> The Basic Law says Chinese laws can't be applied in Hong Kong unless they are listed in a section called Annex III - there are already a few listed there, mostly uncontroversial and around foreign policy. These laws can be introduced by decree - which means they bypass the city's parliament. Critics say the introduction of the law this way amounts to a breach of the "one country, two systems" principle, which is so important to Hong Kong - but clearly it is technically possible to do this.
Remember, this almost certainly wouldn’t just be a straight-up invasion. I’d assume something more like funding pro-China political parties, expanding business and other ties, and then at some point an incident involving a friendly politician asking for help which never leaves. TSMC is important but just one business and not one many people are going to go to war over when business is going to continue mostly as usual.
https://thediplomat.com/2020/04/trump-quietly-signs-legislat...
He was also the first US president to speak with a Republic-of-China president. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump%E2%80%93Tsai_call
Unless something seriously changes, such as a full scale invasion by China, in which hundreds of thousands get killed on both sides, the situation is not even close to the same thing.
> Britain’s ‘disgraceful’ pre-handover efforts to deny nationality to Hongkongers revealed in declassified cabinet files
> Officials repeatedly pressured Portugal not to grant rights to Macau residents to prevent Hongkongers from asking for similar treatment
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/politics/article/2156385...
75 years ago the United States was part of the allied powers that helped put an end to a genocidal dictator with world domination plans. 200 years ago the United States was a major participator in the global slave trade and actively waging war and committing genocide against the ingenious people of North America.
No ethnic or national group of people have been virtuous throughout history. No ethnic or national group of people have been evil throughout history. Trying to cut history into a small slice in order to draw a moral contrast is misleading and ignorant at best.
Unfortunately, while they've ditched the economic part of communism, they've retained the dictatorial part, while moving towards the vision in 1984--a vision that seemed absurdly impractical when I read the book back in the 60s. But AI is now making it possible for the Chinese overloads to implement.
Yeah, Xi double-plus good. And I'm sure Winnie will increase the chocolate ration next week.
> STUDENTS LINKED ARMS BUT WERE MOWN DOWN INCLUDING SOLDIERS. APCS THEN RAN OVER BODIES TIME AND TIME AGAIN TO MAKE QUOTE PIE UNQUOTE AND REMAINS COLLECTED BY BULLDOZER. REMAINS INCINERATED AND THEN HOSED DOWN DRAINS.
Say what you will about the US, we still haven’t run citizens over with tanks and hosed them down drains.
Source: https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/UK_cable_on_Tiananmen_Squar...
do you know what happened in iraq?
https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?N...
I personally see no difference between the two except they're both fighting to be the world superpower and China is really stepping in to take that role from a USA in distress.
Has China done that?
Yes, tell me more about what the US did in the Philippines.
That’s my point. Don’t try and deflect.
And those places have a quite positive views of America.
> In 2018, two-thirds (67%) see the U.S. positively, up 10 percentage points from 2017.
> But the Japanese public has less esteem for America than do Filipinos (83%) and South Koreans (80%).
I know Vietnam has one of the most pro-American viewpoints of any country. Last poll I saw had >90% holding a positive view of the US.
China has not typically gone beyond their own historical borders, and when they have, it is miniscule compared to how the U.S. has.
Want more examples?
Yes the US has done bad things. But there are degrees of bad things and I would argue China has done worst things and continues to do so.
Try being a minority religion in China too...
The Taliban killed approximately zero Iraqis (you may be confusing al-Qaeda with the Taliban, and the group that after the war temporarily adopted the name “al-Qaeda in Iraq”, before becoming the Islamic State—that erupted into a major force because of the American mismanagement of the post-invasion occupation, most notably the almost entirely unmanaged demobilization of the security services—with al-Qaeda itself. Americans killed a lot themselves, as well as launching an unprovoked war of aggression which produced the context in which many others were killed beyond those Americans killed directly. But all of those deaths are America's fault and responsibility, even those that are also someone else’s fault and responsibility.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/People%27s_Park_(Berkeley)
Shooting workers that unionized was also common:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattimer_massacre
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaconda_Road_massacre
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_Mine_massacre
uhh... what? Have you checked the "legal action" section?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_State_shootings#Legal_act...
or did you expect that the guards' heads be put on a pike?
Oh, and don't forget that we can talk about what happened freely. Try doing that in China.
But anyone with a gun can pull the trigger. It takes an enormous amount of coordination to uniformly run over people with tanks, burn their bodies, and flush them down drains.
The incidents you’ve linked are undoubtedly dark chapters, but they are not comparable to what we’ve seen in China.
Contrast that with Kent State, Jackson State, and other places where troops were deployed and the situation escalated.
The ultimate difference here is that it’s perfectly legal and acceptable for us to talk about what happened at Kent state. The events are not in dispute.
China, on the other hand, jails people for talking about Tiananmen Square. To acknowledge the existence of such heinous acts is itself a crime in that country.
The fact that we can sit here and argue about this without fear of going to prison is itself proof that these situations, and countries, are incomparable.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_...
Talking about Snowden, I have always wondered why there's never been a Chinese whistleblower. Nobody working in Chinese intelligence has the courage or conscience, or they have no way to let the world know?
[0] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Ghraib_torture_and_prisone...
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-security-snowden-guar...
Contrast this with Tiananmen Square: Beijing does everything it can to prevent its citizens knowing about it, and is all to happy to cultivate a reputation that they would gladly do it again today.
Really good example. Thank you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man
The main wikipedia article on Tianenmen square discusses other estimates of the number of deaths (all others being much lower):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_Tiananmen_Square_protests
There are a number of people involved in the protests who have left China and provided accounts. At least one person wrote a book, although there is no English translation as far as I know.
The British government has itself killed quite a lot of civilians and is hardly a reliable source considering their history with China.
I disagree, that photo could’ve easily been taken before the killing started. The fact that tank man’s identity or whereabouts are unknown provides evidence that he was probably killed in the demonstrations.
> The British government has itself killed quite a lot of civilians and is hardly a reliable source considering their history with China.
This is completely fallacious. The fact that Britain has killed civilians has no bearing on their truth-telling here. You’re essentially arguing that no country is capable of telling the truth because it’s not realistic to name a country that hasn’t killed civilians at some point, no?
I do not think in general governments are a good source of facts and even in the best circumstances most seem incapable of telling the truth. The British government reporting on China is nowhere near the best circumstances. The account you quoted now serves as propaganda for people who want to believe that China is uniquely monstrous. A number of people have quoted it on HN and it is at odds with eyewitness accounts.
Even the Chinese government admits it killed hundreds of people during the protest. Possibly the number is over 1k, but 10k deaths is not credible nor is the vivid account.
Yes, the US has done plenty of things that are wrong. We talk about them frequently, including here on HN. But this conversation is about China oppressing the people of Hong Kong. Do you mind letting us discuss that, without distracting us with "But the US!!!!!" all over the place?
2) it's debatable whether "1 billion were lifted out of poverty", and if it was, the US financed that
3) the US was asked by Kuwait and Saudi Arabia to defend their countries. Iraq was told in advance what would happen if they used aggression (European diplomats said the opposite in order to make future arms sales)
4) China deliberately infected the world with corona, as reported.
Are you saying the Chinese government could occupy a foreign country, commit war crimes against them, and kill over a million people without anyone knowing?
It's not just the Uighurs in Xinjiang, either. It's the Christians. It's Hong Kong. It's trying to shut down anybody, planet wide, who speaks anything negative about China or Xi.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/04/30/vietnamese-...
That reason is that to understand how to solve problems elsewhere, you first need to understand how to solve the same type of problems in your neck of the woods. The U.S. spent the latter half of the 20th century and has continued since then exporting its way of doing things through military action. For example, I recently learned of Salvador Allende. He was a president of Chile that won a democratic election based upon his socialist campaign. He said what he was going to do and was elected by the people. The U.S. tried for years to thwart his election, and when he won, the U.S. directly supported, if not organized and enacted, a coup that ended in success, for the coup, and Allende taking his own life upon being surrounded. This is sickening. How can the U.S. and its people in good conscience decry other countries' actions when we do the same thing to other countries beyond our own borders? The U.S. still holds prisons that imprisons foreigners without charge and without cause. How can the U.S. decry China for imprisoning its own citizens? I am not supporting anything here. I am merely trying to explain that things matter and are connected, and you cannot view things with tunnel vision.
The other reason is one of perception. If the U.S. wants change in China and elsewhere, one needs to understand the political and social repercussions of one's own actions. This is called if you want to talk the talk, you must walk the walk. The U.S. primarily talks the talk while the rest of the world sees how the U.S. does not walk the walk. The U.S. does the very things it decries in another countries. This is very harmful.
No, not really. It is perfectly possible to discuss many different issues without having to think of an answer for numerous X, Y, or Z issues that someone else brings up in order to distract you from the point.
The issue is that whenever people do this, they almost always aren't interested in solving the issue. Instead they are looking to dismiss the problem that you brought up, by using whataboutism.
This is the most common way for someone to try and get you to stop caring about an issue. There will always be an excuse that someone can throw at you, so that they can dismiss the problem that you brought up.
> This is very harmful.
The harmful thing is instead the people who are trying to prevent the problems from being solved, by distracting people from the things that they bring up.
> How can the U.S. and its people in good conscience decry other countries' actions
If bad things are happening, I want those bad thing to stop. And I am never going to accept someone pointing to a different bad thing, in order to defend against some other bad thing from happening.
Less bad things should be the goal. And this strategy of whataboutism just distracts from that.
You cannot simply dismiss hypocrisy as whataboutism. Apparently you and everyone else throwing around this term would dismiss the common phrase of "look inward first" as whataboutism.
Thats fine. But if you are going to do that, what you should do is say "Yes, the issue you brought up is definitely bad, and I agree with you that it should be solved, and you are 100% right about it. Also, here is another problem that should also be solved".
If you are going to 100% agree with me, and say that I am right for bringing up a certain problem, and also point to a related problem, thats fine.
But if you don't say "Yes you are right. The thing you brought up is very bad, and it should stop", then it comes off as an attempt to dismiss or delegitimize the very important problem that someone previously brought up.
So great. Fine. Maybe the other thing you brought should also be solved. But that does not at all dismiss the original issue and the original issue should still be solved, and the original points that were made are correct.
I am still 100% completely justified, in every way, to bring up the original problem, and if someone is saying that the original problem that was brought up should not be solved, then that person is still completely wrong, regardless of the fact that you brought up a different problem that maybe should be solved.
Go away, propagandist troll.
The various incarnations of the dictature that is the CCP have killed millions of its own people through labour camps and unchallenged economic policies that literally resulted in famines and poverty.
But that's not the point. Comparing the evils that each country has done is a distraction from the current topic. It's not the US giving lessons here, it's people like you and me saying that the very present behaviour of China in Hong Kong is unacceptable.
Seeing all this happen, you have to ask - how much were the people lifted out of poverty, and how much did they climb out when Deng Xiaopeng took a little of the pressure off their necks
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
No, that's not because we're defending China or are secret communist agents. We're defending HN against vandalism. Not to mention arson.
We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23807418.
You may fault the 'racist' Brits, but they put an end to Shaka Zulus 500 mile genocide perimeter and they attempted to civilise many peoples whose languages lacked basic concepts such as time, future & present. It's telling that you use Trotskys perversion of language to slander them.
Aided by infiltrators and agitators such as yourself, what came after didn't seem to value the virtues of honesty, tolerance and friendship between peoples the Brits were taught. Chinese culture regard higher those who use dishonesty to gain advantage.
I will conceed though, it really was a great strategy the commies employed to exacerbate splits in the peoples, weaponise race then arm the pressure groups. Not only did it ensure governance became untenable, it also resulted in mass genocide including Mau Mau, Zanzibar and Ugandan genocides and the loss of any hope of the conservation of the majestic African fauna [1].
China now spoils and pillages Africa on a scale Rhodes would never have dreamt of. Although civilisation lost I guess for them, it was worth it.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V355OG77SQM
If your point is that the potential influx of HKers will create social tensions and feed into racism then I would agree, but that's not specific to the UK. Having 3M people suddenly popping up on your doorstep can be a challenge.
However, while I hope that many HKers take on the opportunity to get a real British passport, I know most will do this as a backup plan. They will funnel their families and finances out of HK (to the benefit of the UK) but still live in HK for the most part.
Most HKer know they can't just show-up in the UK and be successful there as they are in HK. Some will enjoy some opportunities and will manage to build or rebuild their success but most have their lives strongly anchored in the economic fabric of HK, and that's not easy to transpose elsewhere.
Cold weather, mediocre food, expensive prices, expensive housing, and an economy and system on the verge of entering a highly destabilized period.
That's an attractive offer?
South of England, particularly London gets pretty low rainfall and decent weather temperatures
> Mediocre food
You don't know what you are talking about!
> expensive prices
Compared to what?
> and an economy and system on the verge of entering a highly destabilized period.
Yea HK definitely won't experience any of that
As for Brexit, the additional economic fallout (already, and coming) from that self-inflicted problem will be worse than the general downturn for most other places.
For me there is no Hong Kong anymore. There is Xianggang city, Guangdong province.
Communists and totalitarians can't tolerate the image of citizens bailing for greener pastures.