Thatcher's Politicial Legacy.

[Gups]

The Kong Kong handover was 7 years after she had left office.

[Razgovory]

I thought the treaty was signed in the 1980's.

[Richard Hakluyt]

Yes, 1984/5 according to this :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transfer_of_sovereignty_over_Hong_Kong

[jimmy olsen]

shes only been in hell few hours and already shut down 3 furneces

I laughed 

[Caliga]

Or if she had to be so confrontational in order to become the first female PM.

This.

Hi, Ed!

[Agelastus]

I think it was a travesty that the UK did not allow anybody who wanted to leave to get UK citizenship.  150+ years of being sorta loyal British subjects should have at least afforded the people of Hong Kong that much.  That was done before she became PM though IIRC.

The Nationalities or whatever it was act was one of the low points of her early years; done because they didn't like the idea of up to a million Chinese immigrants arriving out of the three million of Hong Kong. I disagreed with the policy as a child and I disagree with it now. 

The number of immigrants we've let into our country both voluntarily and involuntarily since makes it seem even more ludicrous in hindsight.

As it was I thought she got as good a deal from the PRC as could be expected, it was not like she had much leverage.

Well, while I can remember laughing at the commentators in certain newspapers who advocated handing Hong Kong over to the ROC rather than the PRC she actually had more leverage than you think, I believe. Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula were British; only the New Territories had to be returned. And unlike Portugal in the case of Goa and India the Chinese wouldn't have risked a unilateral occupation of the area given Britain's status as a nuclear power.

However, most people in Britain considered Hong Kong and Kowloon to be unviable as a Territory without the New Territories so everything was on the table from the start (as I understand it.)

In hindsight, I also wonder if Thatcher's reaction to the invasion of the Falklands was also helpful during the negotiations in getting concessions from the Chinese.

shes only been in hell few hours and already shut down 3 furneces

I laughed 

Yeah, I thought that was the only redeeming feature of the post myself, if only because an image of her lecturing the devil on inefficiency is so...apt...

[crazy canuck]

I think it was a travesty that the UK did not allow anybody who wanted to leave to get UK citizenship.

Whoever may have been at fault for that it certainly benefited Vancouver as we were the recipient of a large number of those people.

[Valmy]

There is one thing about the Hong Kong handover that sort of puzzles me.  It is not shocking just sorta surprising.  The Chinese could have mandated all the roads get renamed and all the statues get torn down but they left them be...almost as a reverence  for the history of the place.  A reminder of past Chinese humiliations to strengthen their resolve in future confrontations with Western Imperialism?  Hong Kong has a fondness (I know Latin America both loves and hates Spain at the same time) for the British so they didn't want to step on any toes?  Just to signal that things wouldn't change that much?  I just find it surprising.

[Valmy]

I think it was a travesty that the UK did not allow anybody who wanted to leave to get UK citizenship.

Whoever may have been at fault for that it certainly benefited Vancouver as we were the recipient of a large number of those people.

It was just Britain's last chance to appear to be softer gentler sorts of Imperialists who really cared about their subjects and they blew the test.  Eh I guess it was a fitting end to that empire, the British would never commit to a global Britain.  The people in the empire were always going to be second class citizens.

[Jacob]

The Kong Kong handover was 7 years after she had left office.

The Chinese give her the credit, though. As far as they're concerned, that's the main noteworthy thing about her government.

[Neil]

It was just Britain's last chance to appear to be softer gentler sorts of Imperialists who really cared about their subjects and they blew the test.  Eh I guess it was a fitting end to that empire, the British would never commit to a global Britain.  The people in the empire were always going to be second class citizens.

Is that really a bad thing though?  Ethnic diversity is something of a bad thing for a society.

[Valmy]

Is that really a bad thing though?  Ethnic diversity is something of a bad thing for a society.

It is bad if what you wanted was a British Empire that was going to endure and be a positive force in the world.  It would have had to become everybody's empire not just those people living in Blighty.  Eventually there would have had to be Indian politicians running it and so forth, just like the Illyrians running the Roman Empire.  They toyed with that idea several times, in fact it was Benjamin Franklin's grand vision back when he supported it, but it never really took hold.

[crazy canuck]

Is that really a bad thing though?  Ethnic diversity is something of a bad thing for a society.

Epecially if ethnic Albertans are permitted across Provincial lines.

[Jacob]

There is one thing about the Hong Kong handover that sort of puzzles me.  It is not shocking just sorta surprising.  The Chinese could have mandated all the roads get renamed and all the statues get torn down but they left them be...almost as a reverence  for the history of the place.  A reminder of past Chinese humiliations to strengthen their resolve in future confrontations with Western Imperialism?  Hong Kong has a fondness (I know Latin America both loves and hates Spain at the same time) for the British so they didn't want to step on any toes?  Just to signal that things wouldn't change that much?  I just find it surprising.

This is pure speculation on my part, but I'm guessing it's for two related reasons, both derived from Deng and his followers:

1. Hong Kong had the kind of prosperity China wanted. As such it was a model for the economic liberalization that China was about to have; destroying it would have been counter productive.

2. Huge parts of the CPC is incredibly venal and corrupt; nonetheless, there are also reformist impulses that are interested in good governance, the elimination of corruption, and greater democracy. Hong Kong is and was a contained area to experiment in.

[Neil]

Is that really a bad thing though?  Ethnic diversity is something of a bad thing for a society.

It is bad if what you wanted was a British Empire that was going to endure and be a positive force in the world.  It would have had to become everybody's empire not just those people living in Blighty.  Eventually there would have had to be Indian politicians running it and so forth, just like the Illyrians running the Roman Empire.  They toyed with that idea several times, in fact it was Benjamin Franklin's grand vision back when he supported it, but it never really took hold.

The British Empire was long gone by the time anybody had to make that choice.

Besides, letting the barbarians run the country sounds like a recipe for disaster.  It certainly was for the Romans.