China Thread

[Speaker to Animals]

Hong Kong belongs to PRC now. They should comply or prepare for revolution. In between shit is stupid.

[C-Mag]

Hong Kong belongs to PRC now. They should comply or prepare for revolution. In between shit is stupid.

Looks like it

[Zlaxer]

Hong Kong belongs to PRC now. They should comply or prepare for revolution. In between shit is stupid.

Looks like it

Prc goona prc - fuck the will of the people. US better not do shit - not our people, not our problem - let the Non-PRC fight it.

[Speaker to Animals]

They kind of are our people. They might be Han Chinese racially but they act like a bunch of Anglos.

We are basically watching something like a Commonwealth nation get absorbed by a brutal communist regime here.

[Zlaxer]

They kind of are our people. They might be Han Chinese racially but they act like a bunch of Anglos.

We are basically watching something like a Commonwealth nation get absorbed by a brutal communist regime here.

Don't get me wrong - I hate the PRC - just not willing to spend more $$$ and lives on other people's problems. They've had decades to get ready for the PRC and they didn't....not for us to bail them out.

Are they US citizens? Pay US taxes? then no.

[StCapps]

Fucking Commies out to ruin Milton Friedman's Hong Kong, killing the golden goose, sad.

[Hastur]

Carrie Lam is a disastrous treasonous leader. The worst kind of person for the job. Utterly unprincipled and spineless.

[BjornP]

When Britain's lease of Hong Kong ended and it was handed back to China, the local HK government's demands for autonomy for 99 years ("one state, two systems") was agreed to by the Chinese government.

The HK protestors can, as I understand it, rightly point to China violating the terms of the handover agreement.

Not that Han Chinese seem to care alot for contracts. Despite the Communist badge, they are a deeply class and status based culture. You are right because of your social status. Even if that status was bought by your corrupt bureaucrat daddy.

[Zlaxer]

When Britain's lease of Hong Kong ended and it was handed back to China, the local HK government's demands for autonomy for 99 years ("one state, two systems") was agreed to by the Chinese government.

The HK protestors can, as I understand it, rightly point to China violating the terms of the handover agreement.

Not that Han Chinese seem to care alot for contracts. Despite the Communist badge, they are a deeply class and status based culture. You are right because of your social status. Even if that status was bought by your corrupt bureaucrat daddy.

That is why the China fell thousands of years ago and why the PRC will in the long term.

[Hastur]

When Britain's lease of Hong Kong ended and it was handed back to China, the local HK government's demands for autonomy for 99 years ("one state, two systems") was agreed to by the Chinese government.

The HK protestors can, as I understand it, rightly point to China violating the terms of the handover agreement.

Not that Han Chinese seem to care alot for contracts. Despite the Communist badge, they are a deeply class and status based culture. You are right because of your social status. Even if that status was bought by your corrupt bureaucrat daddy.

That is why the China fell thousands of years ago and why the PRC will in the long term.

The Chinese never mention the Sino-British Joint Declaration anymore. They instead refer to China’s constitution that was changed to reflect the agreement and the Basic Law of Hong Kong. Chinese law is all that matters to them.

Heres a good breakdown:
https://www.scmp.com/comment/insight-op ... aw-remains

Lately, there have been suggestions that China’s constitution applies to Hong Kong, notwithstanding or because of the Basic Law. It is important to take into consideration the historical background of Hong Kong referred to above in any discussion about the relationship between China’s constitution and the Basic Law.

It is true that the Basic Law was enacted pursuant to Article 31 of China’s constitution. Yet, it is equally true that in enacting the Basic Law, the Chinese government did not have an entirely free hand. The content of the Basic Law was largely dictated by the Joint Declaration; indeed, some provisions in the Basic Law reproduced almost verbatim the equivalent provisions in the Joint Declaration.

The most crucial promise in the Joint Declaration is that the socialist system and socialist policies practised on the mainland shall not apply to Hong Kong. This promise is, in fact, inconsistent with China’s constitution, which stipulates the practice of socialism.
The way to get round this problem was to invoke Article 31 of China’s constitution, which authorises the state to establish special administrative regions where the system to be instituted in these regions shall be prescribed by law enacted by the National People’s Congress.

Accordingly, the preamble and the general principles set out in Chapter 1 of China’s constitution, most of which related to the socialist system and policies, are excluded from applying to Hong Kong, and this was achieved not by the Basic Law, but by Article 31 of China’s constitution. This was the reason the NPC has to adopt a specific and separate decision to state that the establishment of the Hong Kong special administrative region was pursuant to Article 31 of China’s constitution when it enacted the Basic Law.