UK extends visa rights to 3 million Hong Kongers

[The Brain]

For a while the Anglo-Saxon world got used to other countries dealing with them on Anglo-Saxon terms because of their great economic advantage. I understand the slight mental adjustment to dealing with others who are stronger, which may be confusing and scary. My best advice is get used to it. It was the economy stupid that won the Cold War. If you can't stay at the top of the world economy you can't beat others peacefully.

[Sheilbh]

Well the UK is thinking in political terms.  Beijing is thinking in monetary terms.  This isn't about friend or foe.  This is about making money.  The assumption is, the UK's primary goal is to make money.  Trading with Mainland China is very profitable.  So the UK must be willing to make significant concessions in order to maintain trading relationships with Mainland China. 

This policy works with a lot of people and countries.  Some South East Asian countries, the tycoons in Hong Kong, many African nations, etc.

Sure, Mono. And the One Belt One Road policy, or building telecoms infrastructure is driven by Beijing's monetary thinking and not politics?

The assumption should be the UK and other countries are as willing to think politically about their economy as China is and the repeated threats are counter-productive if Beijing wants to become more involved in other countries' economies.

[Valmy]

Well the UK is thinking in political terms.  Beijing is thinking in monetary terms.  This isn't about friend or foe.  This is about making money.

Is that why Beijing works overtime to piss off and alienate its biggest trade partner in the United States constantly? It is about making money? That is an odd way of doing business.

[Tonitrus]

I am fascinated by this alien concept of separating monetary goals from political ones.

[Monoriu]

Well the UK is thinking in political terms.  Beijing is thinking in monetary terms.  This isn't about friend or foe.  This is about making money.  The assumption is, the UK's primary goal is to make money.  Trading with Mainland China is very profitable.  So the UK must be willing to make significant concessions in order to maintain trading relationships with Mainland China. 

This policy works with a lot of people and countries.  Some South East Asian countries, the tycoons in Hong Kong, many African nations, etc.

Sure, Mono. And the One Belt One Road policy, or building telecoms infrastructure is driven by Beijing's monetary thinking and not politics?

The assumption should be the UK and other countries are as willing to think politically about their economy as China is and the repeated threats are counter-productive if Beijing wants to become more involved in other countries' economies.

That's not how they think.  Beijing think China is being bullied.  They don't accept that China and other countries are equal.  Historically, China existed on a different plane.  The Middle Kingdom is above everybody else, and rightfully plays by different rules.  China was weak in the past few centuries, but that should be regarded as an anomaly.  Now that Xi and that party have fixed that, it is time to go back to how it was in the Tang and Ming dynasties etc.  There is the Middle Kingdom and there are nomads.  China is interested in books, culture and rice.  Nomads are barbarians and are interested in horses and grass.  Beijing is interested in politics.  The West in interested in money. 

One Road One Belt is partially about making money.  The idea is, China has surplus production capacities.  The existing markets in the West and within China itself cannot absorb all the products that China's ever expanding economy produces.  So new markets are needed, and that's many of the countries in Asia, Africa etc.  But they don't have the infrastructure to support that much trade.  So let's build up their infrastructure and make money in the process.  Loan them money with interest and make money, take over their ports, railroads and make money, then sell them Chinese products and make money, and obtain diplomatic influence so that they can't change that relationship ever. 

[Monoriu]

I am fascinated by this alien concept of separating monetary goals from political ones.

I do think everybody should separate money and politics.  Say I hate Trump and like Biden.  If Trump sells me a steak at US$10 and Biden sells the same steak at US$15, I will not hesitate for a second to buy from Trump. 

[The Brain]

Onoda Hiroo claimed to have gotten into his head that the US and Japan had let civilian business resume while still fighting using their militaries.

[viper37]

Somewhat related, but in my Canadian passport it says that in case the country I'm in does not have Canadian Consular Services, I'm to show up to the British embassy/consulate.

Which I'd never do of course, Perfide Albion. Hence I always travel with both the Canadian and French passport, as France has imperial outposts consular service everywhere.

If you enter a country with one passport, can you get services from another embassy/consulate?

Let's say you are stuck in Haiti, can you go the French embassy to get evacuated eleswhere and then make your way to Montreal?

[Monoriu]

Somewhat related, but in my Canadian passport it says that in case the country I'm in does not have Canadian Consular Services, I'm to show up to the British embassy/consulate.

Which I'd never do of course, Perfide Albion. Hence I always travel with both the Canadian and French passport, as France has imperial outposts consular service everywhere.

If you enter a country with one passport, can you get services from another embassy/consulate?

Let's say you are stuck in Haiti, can you go the French embassy to get evacuated eleswhere and then make your way to Montreal?

I have never heard of people not getting served because they enter the place with a different document.  HKers have many different travel documents.  When people get into trouble, they just call around to see who will help them. 

[Zoupa]

Somewhat related, but in my Canadian passport it says that in case the country I'm in does not have Canadian Consular Services, I'm to show up to the British embassy/consulate.

Which I'd never do of course, Perfide Albion. Hence I always travel with both the Canadian and French passport, as France has imperial outposts consular service everywhere.

If you enter a country with one passport, can you get services from another embassy/consulate?

Let's say you are stuck in Haiti, can you go the French embassy to get evacuated eleswhere and then make your way to Montreal?

La République répond à l'appel de ses fils peu import

[The Larch]

Fun fact, if you are in a foreign country and have an EU passport and your country doesn't have an embassy or consulate in the place that you are, any other EU embassy or consulate will help you out.

[The Brain]

Fun fact, if you are in a foreign country and have an EU passport and your country doesn't have an embassy or consulate in the place that you are, any other EU embassy or consulate will help you out.

But you won't be in control.

[Tamas]

Fun fact, if you are in a foreign country and have an EU passport and your country doesn't have an embassy or consulate in the place that you are, any other EU embassy or consulate will help you out.

But you won't be in control.

And your passport won't be blue.

[Monoriu]

Andrew Green: We cannot responsibly fling our doors open to three million Hong Kongers

Lord Green is President of MigrationWatch UK and a cross-bench peer.

Out of the blue, the Government recently announced that, if China imposes their national security law on Hong Kong, they are prepared to offer residence in the UK to about half the population of our former colony. Amazingly, this fundamental change of policy seems to have emerged from some remarks by Dominic Raab to reporters.

At this point, a reminder of the history is needed. These citizens of Hong Kong possess, or will be able to apply for, British National (Overseas) Passports, which are travel documents that the Government granted only to Hong Kong, and only to those born before the 1997 handover to China. They do not, at present, grant a right to live in the UK but they do allow holders to visit for up to six months without first applying for a visa.

However, the Foreign Secretary has now told Parliament that, should the Chinese government continue "down its current path," he will permit the document to be used for a visit of twelve months, which would be renewable and would permit applications for work and study.

This would become a pathway to full British citizenship after five years. It would also, of course, lead to access to the welfare state, health and education (and the right to vote in general elections).

A few days later, the Prime Minister leapt in with his characteristic enthusiasm. He warned China that, if they imposed such a law. He would offer BNO passport holders the prospect of British citizenship. This he wrote would amount to "one of the biggest changes in our visa system in history", a step that the Government would willingly take.

So what could this possibly achieve? It is impossible to say what the take up would be. A survey reported by a Hong Kong newspaper in June found that 37 per cent were thinking of emigrating, up from 24 per cent in March. Of those planning to leave 90 per cent said that they were influenced by "the present situation."

The Government claim that the numbers would be small. If so, how does this amount to a threat to China? They might well be delighted to see some of their key opponents leave.

If numbers were high, the Government would face major problems settling large numbers of new arrivals, especially if we were simultaneously facing unemployment of several million. Indeed, the rate of outflow could become a weapon in Chinese hands and, if they were nasty enough, those four million without BNO passports (who already have visa free entry to the UK) would have an arguable claim for asylum in Britain. Clearly, this huge change in our visa system is a massive hostage to fortune.

The potential scale of the consequences is, indeed, huge. There are about 300,000 holders of these British National (Overseas) passports, and nearly three million more whose passports have expired, but who have the legal right to renew them.

Nobody knows, of course, what proportion of these Hong Kong citizens would come to Britain. Some might prefer Taiwan. Others might prefer North America or Australia. All those countries would take some but we are, in effect, offering an open door to all three million BNO passport holders. This is 25 times the number of skilled work permits issued each year to non EU citizens and their dependants.

And all this is occurring as unemployment in Britain shoots up. Two million are already claiming unemployment benefit and several million more might be doing so before the year is out. British workers would regard such extra competition as extremely ill-timed, to say the very least.

Then there is the question of payment for all the additional housing, medical facilities, school and infrastructure needed. Three million is equivalent to the 2019 populations of Birmingham, Leeds, Manchester and Edinburgh added together. Not all will come and many of those who do will contribute, of course, but nothing like enough to pay for the infrastructure that would be needed.

Some commentators point to the Asians who were expelled from Uganda in the early 1970s. Many have done well here but scale is important. They numbered some 30,000 (including the parents of our current Home Secretary). The number of Hong Kong Chinese with the right to come here will be one hundred times the number of Ugandan Asians who arrived in the 1970s, not to speak of those who do not possess a BNO passport but who might claim asylum.

In short, this is an extraordinarily ill-conceived policy which, apparently, the Government intend to bounce through Parliament. So far, they are being given an easy ride by the opposition parties. Lisa Nandy, the shadow Foreign Secretary, has described the Government's policy as "an important first step in fulfilling our longstanding obligation to the people of Hong Kong".

Nandy appears to have glossed over the fact that Labour was in office for 13 years immediately following the handover. She is only outflanked by the Liberal Democrat call for all 7.4 million Hong Kong citizens to be offered the right to life in the UK. It is hard to imagine a more ludicrous suggestion.

But it is the Conservatives who are in power and must take the decisions. All this comes on top of the Government's post-Brexit policy, which could substantially increase immigration from around the world. It lowers the salary and qualification requirements for work permits. It abandons any requirement to advertise jobs in the UK before looking to recruit overseas and, crucially, it drops the concept of a cap on the number to be issued each year.

If they now grant access to a large number of Hong Kongers they will have demonstrated beyond doubt that they have lost the plot on immigration and voters, especially in the North and East will draw their own conclusions. It is no exaggeration to say that the Government's extraordinarily ill-considered policy on Hong Kong could cost them the next election.

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2020/06/andrew-green-we-cannot-responsibly-fling-our-doors-open-to-three-million-hong-kongers.html

[The Brain]

Lord Green? Is he a pimp or a rapper?