Languish.org

Been discussed elsewhere but this is excellent news and the right thing to do - rare I get to say that about British politics :) :w00t:

QuoteUK widens visa rights offer to almost 3m Hong Kong residents
Home Office clarifies pledge and sets government on collision course with China

(https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%3A%2F%2Fd1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net%2Fproduction%2F698ad91d-25d7-4ee3-a72a-2969789127b2.jpg?fit=scale-down&source=next&width=700)
There are estimated to be about 2.9m people eligible to apply for a BNO passport living in Hong Kong © AP
Laura Hughes in London and Yuan Yang in Beijing 2 HOURS AGO

The UK has set itself on a collision course with China after broadening its offer on extended visa rights from 350,000 to almost 3m Hong Kong residents.

After Beijing announced plans this week to proceed with the imposition of a national security law on Hong Kong, UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab retaliated with an "unprecedented" pledge to expand visa rights for British National (Overseas) passport holders in Hong Kong from six to 12 months and "provide a pathway to future citizenship".

About 350,000 people hold valid BNO passports, a document issued to Hong Kong residents born before the handover of the territory from UK to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.

However, the Home Office clarified on Friday that the pledge to extend visa rights would apply to anyone eligible to apply for a BNO passport currently living in Hong Kong, of which there are estimated to be about 2.9m. Most of the additional 2.55m people have held a BNO passport in the past but not renewed it.

The move was made because "the new security law will undermine the existing legal commitments to protect the rights of Hong Kong people", the Home Office said. It is symbolic of the UK prime minister Boris Johnson's new willingness to adopt a tougher stance towards Beijing.

With increasing concerns that Beijing did not disclose the initial scale of the coronavirus outbreak, Mr Johnson is under pressure from his own backbench MPs to reset relations with Beijing.

The latest display of defiance against China comes after Mr Raab announced an end to "business as usual" and the government started drawing up plans to force a full phase-out of the Chinese telecoms equipment maker Huawei from Britain's 5G networks within three years.

China on Friday hit back at the UK's pledge to extend visa rights, arguing that the two countries had previously agreed a memorandum stating that the UK would not give Hong Kong BNO passport holders right of residency.

It has argued the agreement was reached alongside the 1984 Joint Declaration, which established the "one country, two systems" arrangement that guarantees Hong Kong a level of autonomy.

"All of our Hong Kong Chinese compatriots are Chinese citizens," said foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian on Friday. He threatened that if the "UK unilaterally changes its approach" on the matter of British Nationals (Overseas), China would "resolutely oppose" and "reserve the right to use appropriate countermeasures".

Peter Goldsmith, a former attorney-general, advised ministers earlier this year that granting BNOs the right to live in the UK would not breach the Joint Declaration.

Rana Mitter, director of the University of Oxford China Centre, said the offer to BNOs signalled a response "to something the Chinese government has been saying over the last few years, which is that some aspects of the Joint Declaration don't really apply".

He said: "In some sense this potential move could be a statement that if China is not willing to accept that all aspects of the Joint Declaration are valid, then the UK feels that it too can look at aspects of it and decide where it wants to alter things. That may be part of the logic behind this particular move."

Prof Mitter added that the threat of offering visa extensions and a path to potential citizenship would be "particularity worrying" for the Chinese government if large numbers of wealth creators connected to the business community decided they wanted to take up the offer and become resident in London.

"That would be really problematic for the [Chinese] government", he said. "It would be an international sign of lack of confidence in Hong Kong and harm its status as an international business centre."

Cui Hongjian, head of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies, a foreign ministry think-tank, said the BNO pledge would have a "negative" effect on the mutual trust between China and the UK but that it was more of a "political and diplomatic gesture".

China was prepared for "this negative reaction and will not retreat", added Cheng Xiaohe, deputy director of Renmin university's Center for China's International Strategic Studies. "But I think China will not treat the countries the same way. China will focus on its main target, the 'Big Brother' — the US."

Hopefully we also clarify the rights of family members of BNO citizens. But I am very happy with this escape route for many Hong Kongers and can't wait to welcome any move over :)

It is also a fairly extraordinary moment that we're proposing (if China proceeds) to just extend residence rights to 3 million people, with total cross-party support and almost no opposition. Obviously it is also morally and legally the right thing to do as China tramples all over the Joint Declaration.

I am very glad to hear this. The British Empire will always do the right thing once all other options are exhausted.

It is nice that China still considers us a brother to other nations.

:yeah:

We should do the same for them in the USA. Let them pick an Anglo nation to high-tail it to.

Quote from: Habbaku on May 29, 2020, 12:59:31 PM
We should do the same for them in the USA. Let them pick an Anglo nation to high-tail it to.

No way, Chinese people caused the pandemic.

Good. :)

Fuck yeah UK! I shall enjoy a brief moment of glowing national pride for the old country before the dreary grim slide into dystopian proto fascism continues.

Quote from: Habbaku on May 29, 2020, 12:59:31 PM
:yeah:

We should do the same for them in the USA. Let them pick an Anglo nation to high-tail it to.

Yeah to be honest I hope that we work with the US, Canada and Australia (we've been issuing joint statements so far), Taiwan (who are preparing something similar) and any EU nation that wants to help to make sure there's a route out for everyone. I think this needs a multi-national solution.

But this is a very good first step - obviously I want us to make sure that the families of BNO citizens (many of their children, for example will be Mono's young "rioters") can settle here too and easily without any Home Office bullshit.

:yes: Drain their fucking brains as much as possible. Let them have the land--their people are far more valuable.

Quote from: Habbaku on May 29, 2020, 01:16:42 PM
:yes: Drain their fucking brains as much as possible. Let them have the land--their people are far more valuable.

Yeah - I think if there is going to be a more competitive relationship between the West and China then a very good first step would be to do as much as we can to incite a brain drain :ph34r:

I don't understand the idea of brain drain.  That might work in the 90s but not now.  Hong Kongers had, in the Greater China context, unique skills like finance, trading etc back then.  But that's no longer true.  Some of the western investment banks in Hong Kong don't hire any HKers anymore.  Their Chinese employees all speak Mandarin and come from the Mainland.  They will get better people picking the best from a 1.4 billion pool than a 7 million pool.  Their Mainland employers are better educated, more connected, have a better understanding of Mainland culture, etc.  Hong Kongers don't have bargaining power any more without protectionist measures from the HK government, and that's one of the fundamental reasons of the unhappiness.  Hong Kongers who leave for the West can easily be replaced by better Mainland workers, and there is a long list of people who want to come. 

This will take some pressure off the Vancouver real estate market.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 29, 2020, 03:01:44 PM
I don't understand the idea of brain drain.  That might work in the 90s but not now.  Hong Kongers had, in the Greater China context, unique skills like finance, trading etc back then.  But that's no longer true.  Some of the western investment banks in Hong Kong don't hire any HKers anymore.  Their Chinese employees all speak Mandarin and come from the Mainland.  They will get better people picking the best from a 1.4 billion pool than a 7 million pool.  Their Mainland employers are better educated, more connected, have a better understanding of Mainland culture, etc.  Hong Kongers don't have bargaining power any more without protectionist measures from the HK government, and that's one of the fundamental reasons of the unhappiness.  Hong Kongers who leave for the West can easily be replaced by better Mainland workers, and there is a long list of people who want to come.

Good, then hopefully China will not interfere with anyone who wants to leave...

Quote from: crazy canuck on May 29, 2020, 03:16:40 PM


Good, then hopefully China will not interfere with anyone who wants to leave...

Not sure why this comes up.  Hong Kongers move to the West all the time, and I am not aware of Mainland China stopping people from leaving.  I think that's actually a great thing from a governance perspective.  It is better for unhappy people to leave rather than stay and make trouble. 

Beijing has been pushing Hong Kongers to leave.  The only difference is they want Hong Kongers to go to the Greater Bay area.  It is official policy of the pro-Beijing parties in Hong Kong that those who complain about high housing costs, work opportunities etc should go north.  They have done a lot to make that easier and more attractive, like more education opportunities for HKers in Mainland universities, the construction of "HK villages" on the Mainland, the recognition of HK qualifications etc etc.  It isn't like they want Hong Kongers to stay.  In their ideal world, most Hong Kongers would move away, to be replaced by better, cheaper, and more loyal Mainlanders. 

Quote from: Monoriu on May 29, 2020, 03:01:44 PM
I don't understand the idea of brain drain.  That might work in the 90s but not now.  Hong Kongers had, in the Greater China context, unique skills like finance, trading etc back then.  But that's no longer true.  Some of the western investment banks in Hong Kong don't hire any HKers anymore.  Their Chinese employees all speak Mandarin and come from the Mainland.  They will get better people picking the best from a 1.4 billion pool than a 7 million pool.  Their Mainland employers are better educated, more connected, have a better understanding of Mainland culture, etc.  Hong Kongers don't have bargaining power any more without protectionist measures from the HK government, and that's one of the fundamental reasons of the unhappiness.  Hong Kongers who leave for the West can easily be replaced by better Mainland workers, and there is a long list of people who want to come.

We're happy to drain mainland brains as well.

I stand by to be drained by an 18 y/o Mainland chick.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 29, 2020, 03:54:59 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 29, 2020, 03:01:44 PM
I don't understand the idea of brain drain.  That might work in the 90s but not now.  Hong Kongers had, in the Greater China context, unique skills like finance, trading etc back then.  But that's no longer true.  Some of the western investment banks in Hong Kong don't hire any HKers anymore.  Their Chinese employees all speak Mandarin and come from the Mainland.  They will get better people picking the best from a 1.4 billion pool than a 7 million pool.  Their Mainland employers are better educated, more connected, have a better understanding of Mainland culture, etc.  Hong Kongers don't have bargaining power any more without protectionist measures from the HK government, and that's one of the fundamental reasons of the unhappiness.  Hong Kongers who leave for the West can easily be replaced by better Mainland workers, and there is a long list of people who want to come.

We're happy to drain mainland brains as well.

Well first of all, losing a few million people isn't a big deal to a country with 1.4 billion people.  Secondly, a lot of western educated Mainlanders with western citizenship choose to live and work on the Mainland, simply because the financial rewards are better.  People won't be drained so easily just because the west give them citizenship.  In fact I saw a lot of westerners living on the Mainland as well, so I am not sure who is draining who :contract:

It's definitely China losing: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/CHN/china/net-migration

Quote from: Monoriu on May 29, 2020, 04:07:55 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 29, 2020, 03:54:59 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 29, 2020, 03:01:44 PM
I don't understand the idea of brain drain.  That might work in the 90s but not now.  Hong Kongers had, in the Greater China context, unique skills like finance, trading etc back then.  But that's no longer true.  Some of the western investment banks in Hong Kong don't hire any HKers anymore.  Their Chinese employees all speak Mandarin and come from the Mainland.  They will get better people picking the best from a 1.4 billion pool than a 7 million pool.  Their Mainland employers are better educated, more connected, have a better understanding of Mainland culture, etc.  Hong Kongers don't have bargaining power any more without protectionist measures from the HK government, and that's one of the fundamental reasons of the unhappiness.  Hong Kongers who leave for the West can easily be replaced by better Mainland workers, and there is a long list of people who want to come.

We're happy to drain mainland brains as well.

Well first of all, losing a few million people isn't a big deal to a country with 1.4 billion people.  Secondly, a lot of western educated Mainlanders with western citizenship choose to live and work on the Mainland, simply because the financial rewards are better.  People won't be drained so easily just because the west give them citizenship.  In fact I saw a lot of westerners living on the Mainland as well, so I am not sure who is draining who :contract:

We get your doctors, scientists, and other top people

You take our recent graduates who want a few years out and those who've decided to drop out of society to spend their life herding other peoples children and trying to get laid.
Fair deal.

Quote from: Habbaku on May 29, 2020, 12:59:31 PM
:yeah:

We should do the same for them in the USA. Let them pick an Anglo nation to high-tail it to.

God, I wish we would.  Of course, in a few years we might be the fleeing refugees.

Quote from: Tyr on May 29, 2020, 04:15:42 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 29, 2020, 04:07:55 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 29, 2020, 03:54:59 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 29, 2020, 03:01:44 PM
I don't understand the idea of brain drain.  That might work in the 90s but not now.  Hong Kongers had, in the Greater China context, unique skills like finance, trading etc back then.  But that's no longer true.  Some of the western investment banks in Hong Kong don't hire any HKers anymore.  Their Chinese employees all speak Mandarin and come from the Mainland.  They will get better people picking the best from a 1.4 billion pool than a 7 million pool.  Their Mainland employers are better educated, more connected, have a better understanding of Mainland culture, etc.  Hong Kongers don't have bargaining power any more without protectionist measures from the HK government, and that's one of the fundamental reasons of the unhappiness.  Hong Kongers who leave for the West can easily be replaced by better Mainland workers, and there is a long list of people who want to come.

We're happy to drain mainland brains as well.

Well first of all, losing a few million people isn't a big deal to a country with 1.4 billion people.  Secondly, a lot of western educated Mainlanders with western citizenship choose to live and work on the Mainland, simply because the financial rewards are better.  People won't be drained so easily just because the west give them citizenship.  In fact I saw a lot of westerners living on the Mainland as well, so I am not sure who is draining who :contract:

We get your doctors, scientists, and other top people

You take our recent graduates who want a few years out and those who've decided to drop out of society to spend their life herding other peoples children and trying to get laid.
Fair deal.

Hey, I eventually came back.  :mad:

Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on May 29, 2020, 05:56:45 PM

Hey, I eventually came back.  :mad:

Taking you back wasn't part of the deal.  We was robbed.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 29, 2020, 03:01:44 PM
I don't understand the idea of brain drain.  That might work in the 90s but not now.  Hong Kongers had, in the Greater China context, unique skills like finance, trading etc back then.  But that's no longer true. 

So, Hkers no longer have brains?

Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2020, 12:53:59 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 29, 2020, 03:01:44 PM
I don't understand the idea of brain drain.  That might work in the 90s but not now.  Hong Kongers had, in the Greater China context, unique skills like finance, trading etc back then.  But that's no longer true. 

So, Hkers no longer have brains?

Hong Kong's success is, to a large extent, attributable to crazy policies on the Mainland like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution etc.  Those policies made the Mainlanders lose their brains.  So HKers were the only ones left with them.  Once the crazy policies were removed and the Mainlanders got their brains back, there was nothing really that special about HK brains. 

Quote from: Monoriu on May 30, 2020, 04:06:57 AM

Quote from: viper37 on May 30, 2020, 12:53:59 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on May 29, 2020, 03:01:44 PM
I don't understand the idea of brain drain.  That might work in the 90s but not now.  Hong Kongers had, in the Greater China context, unique skills like finance, trading etc back then.  But that's no longer true. 

So, Hkers no longer have brains?

Hong Kong's success is, to a large extent, attributable to crazy policies on the Mainland like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution etc.  Those policies made the Mainlanders lose their brains.  So HKers were the only ones left with them.  Once the crazy policies were removed and the Mainlanders got their brains back, there was nothing really that special about HK brains.

Quoted for posterity. Enjoy the camps!

I am staying in Hong Kong  :)

Not once the commies find your post  :)

Quote from: Monoriu on May 30, 2020, 09:01:10 AM
I am staying in Hong Kong  :)

Well you are actively cheering on the work of removing any distinction between the mainland and Hong Kong, so that's not really relevant.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 29, 2020, 12:53:58 PM
Been discussed elsewhere but this is excellent news and the right thing to do - rare I get to say that about British politics :) :w00t:

QuoteUK widens visa rights offer to almost 3m Hong Kong residents
Home Office clarifies pledge and sets government on collision course with China

(https://www.ft.com/__origami/service/image/v2/images/raw/https%3A%2F%2Fd1e00ek4ebabms.cloudfront.net%2Fproduction%2F698ad91d-25d7-4ee3-a72a-2969789127b2.jpg?fit=scale-down&source=next&width=700)
There are estimated to be about 2.9m people eligible to apply for a BNO passport living in Hong Kong © AP
Laura Hughes in London and Yuan Yang in Beijing 2 HOURS AGO

The UK has set itself on a collision course with China after broadening its offer on extended visa rights from 350,000 to almost 3m Hong Kong residents.

After Beijing announced plans this week to proceed with the imposition of a national security law on Hong Kong, UK foreign secretary Dominic Raab retaliated with an "unprecedented" pledge to expand visa rights for British National (Overseas) passport holders in Hong Kong from six to 12 months and "provide a pathway to future citizenship".

About 350,000 people hold valid BNO passports, a document issued to Hong Kong residents born before the handover of the territory from UK to Chinese sovereignty in 1997.

However, the Home Office clarified on Friday that the pledge to extend visa rights would apply to anyone eligible to apply for a BNO passport currently living in Hong Kong, of which there are estimated to be about 2.9m. Most of the additional 2.55m people have held a BNO passport in the past but not renewed it.

The move was made because "the new security law will undermine the existing legal commitments to protect the rights of Hong Kong people", the Home Office said. It is symbolic of the UK prime minister Boris Johnson's new willingness to adopt a tougher stance towards Beijing.

With increasing concerns that Beijing did not disclose the initial scale of the coronavirus outbreak, Mr Johnson is under pressure from his own backbench MPs to reset relations with Beijing.

The latest display of defiance against China comes after Mr Raab announced an end to "business as usual" and the government started drawing up plans to force a full phase-out of the Chinese telecoms equipment maker Huawei from Britain's 5G networks within three years.

China on Friday hit back at the UK's pledge to extend visa rights, arguing that the two countries had previously agreed a memorandum stating that the UK would not give Hong Kong BNO passport holders right of residency.

It has argued the agreement was reached alongside the 1984 Joint Declaration, which established the "one country, two systems" arrangement that guarantees Hong Kong a level of autonomy.

"All of our Hong Kong Chinese compatriots are Chinese citizens," said foreign ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian on Friday. He threatened that if the "UK unilaterally changes its approach" on the matter of British Nationals (Overseas), China would "resolutely oppose" and "reserve the right to use appropriate countermeasures".

Peter Goldsmith, a former attorney-general, advised ministers earlier this year that granting BNOs the right to live in the UK would not breach the Joint Declaration.

Rana Mitter, director of the University of Oxford China Centre, said the offer to BNOs signalled a response "to something the Chinese government has been saying over the last few years, which is that some aspects of the Joint Declaration don't really apply".

He said: "In some sense this potential move could be a statement that if China is not willing to accept that all aspects of the Joint Declaration are valid, then the UK feels that it too can look at aspects of it and decide where it wants to alter things. That may be part of the logic behind this particular move."

Prof Mitter added that the threat of offering visa extensions and a path to potential citizenship would be "particularity worrying" for the Chinese government if large numbers of wealth creators connected to the business community decided they wanted to take up the offer and become resident in London.

"That would be really problematic for the [Chinese] government", he said. "It would be an international sign of lack of confidence in Hong Kong and harm its status as an international business centre."

Cui Hongjian, head of European Studies at the China Institute of International Studies, a foreign ministry think-tank, said the BNO pledge would have a "negative" effect on the mutual trust between China and the UK but that it was more of a "political and diplomatic gesture".

China was prepared for "this negative reaction and will not retreat", added Cheng Xiaohe, deputy director of Renmin university's Center for China's International Strategic Studies. "But I think China will not treat the countries the same way. China will focus on its main target, the 'Big Brother' — the US."

Hopefully we also clarify the rights of family members of BNO citizens. But I am very happy with this escape route for many Hong Kongers and can't wait to welcome any move over :)

It is also a fairly extraordinary moment that we're proposing (if China proceeds) to just extend residence rights to 3 million people, with total cross-party support and almost no opposition. Obviously it is also morally and legally the right thing to do as China tramples all over the Joint Declaration.

Good job UK.

Cut that out Before.

Now that I think about it, why not give the rioters green cards?  I mean, if you like them, you can have them.  They can have their sacred democracy and the associated police reform.  Hong Kong gets rid of a bunch of criminals for good, and saves on prison costs.  It is a win for everybody. 

Quote from: Monoriu on May 30, 2020, 09:41:49 PM
Now that I think about it, why not give the rioters green cards?  I mean, if you like them, you can have them.  They can have their sacred democracy and the associated police reform.  Hong Kong gets rid of a bunch of criminals for good, and saves on prison costs.  It is a win for everybody. 

It is indeed.

Nah, it's a loss for PRC.  :showoff:

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 30, 2020, 10:24:48 PM
Nah, it's a loss for PRC.  :showoff:

Let's hope so :showoff:

Hopefully Canada accepts a bunch before others get to them :canuck:  :showoff:

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 30, 2020, 10:24:48 PM
Nah, it's a loss for PRC.  :showoff:

PRC gains stability.  After Tiananmen, most of the student leaders were smuggled to the west.  I say the party deliberately let them go.  A few of them actually tried to go back to turn themselves in, and they were turned back.  30 years on, the evidence is that this was the right call.  They couldn't do anything outside China.  Mainland China removed some of the seeds of instability, and didn't have to face endless calls to release them from prison. 

So I say, just repeat this.  Let the rioters go.  It doesn't take a lot of locals to run the Hong Kong government and the finance business.  Most workers could easily be imported from the Mainland anyway. 

UK is OK in my book.  They could form a Hong Kong Regiment too.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 31, 2020, 01:16:40 AM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on May 30, 2020, 10:24:48 PM
Nah, it's a loss for PRC.  :showoff:

PRC gains stability.  After Tiananmen, most of the student leaders were smuggled to the west.  I say the party deliberately let them go.  A few of them actually tried to go back to turn themselves in, and they were turned back.  30 years on, the evidence is that this was the right call.  They couldn't do anything outside China.  Mainland China removed some of the seeds of instability, and didn't have to face endless calls to release them from prison. 

So I say, just repeat this.  Let the rioters go.  It doesn't take a lot of locals to run the Hong Kong government and the finance business.  Most workers could easily be imported from the Mainland anyway.

Maybe back in 1989 they still cared for "endless calls for release", but these days they can easily ignore international condemnation for their ethnic cleansing of the Uighurs, their organ harvesting of Falun Gong and other political prisoners, lying about the true extent of Covid-19 in their country and when they knew about it etc. 

Quote from: Zanza on May 31, 2020, 02:53:24 AM
Maybe back in 1989 they still cared for "endless calls for release", but these days they can easily ignore international condemnation for their ethnic cleansing of the Uighurs, their organ harvesting of Falun Gong and other political prisoners, lying about the true extent of Covid-19 in their country and when they knew about it etc.

But, of course, they don't face much international condemnation for those things. In 1989 they were maybe sufficiently disconnected from the global economy, now they can put pressure on countries or countries think about the economics before taking a position on things like the million Uighurs in "re-education" camps.

Quote from: Zoupa on May 30, 2020, 10:45:05 PM
Hopefully Canada accepts a bunch before others get to them :canuck:  :showoff:

We have already pre accepted.  There are a fair number of vacant homes in Vancouver which are essentially insurance policies for when their owners want to return.

Quote from: Sheilbh on May 31, 2020, 08:12:32 AM

Quote from: Zanza on May 31, 2020, 02:53:24 AM
Maybe back in 1989 they still cared for "endless calls for release", but these days they can easily ignore international condemnation for their ethnic cleansing of the Uighurs, their organ harvesting of Falun Gong and other political prisoners, lying about the true extent of Covid-19 in their country and when they knew about it etc.

But, of course, they don't face much international condemnation for those things. In 1989 they were maybe sufficiently disconnected from the global economy, now they can put pressure on countries or countries think about the economics before taking a position on things like the million Uighurs in "re-education" camps.

what is it about capitalism and selling rope?

QuoteWASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is considering the option of welcoming people from Hong Kong in response to China's push to impose national security legislation in the former British colony, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said in remarks released on Monday.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-hongkong-protests-usa-pompeo/pompeo-says-u-s-considering-welcoming-hong-kong-people-entrepreneurs-idUSKBN23837A

This is not a bad thing  :)

Wow we finally found a cause noble enough that the Trump administration will be nice to foreigners: pissing off the Chinese.

I wonder if China will extend the same offer to our protestors :P

Quote from: grumbler on June 01, 2020, 07:31:31 PM

QuoteIt is every citizen's final duty to go into the tanks and become one with all the people.   ,,
~ Chairman Sheng-ji Yang,
"Ethics for Tomorrow

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F100photos.time.com%2Fphotos%2Fjeff-widener-tank-man&hash=db95d290f7028e8f21315f7935d327e3efdbb520)

:D

Quote from: Valmy on June 01, 2020, 06:41:09 PM
Wow we finally found a cause noble enough that the Trump administration will be nice to foreigners: pissing off the Chinese.

I wonder if China will extend the same offer to our protestors :P

I think Mainland China has one of the world's most difficult naturalisation processes.  It is even more difficult than Japan's, which is notoriously strict. 

I don't think it is deliberate on Beijing's part.  They just haven't thought through the process, because historically almost nobody wants to become Chinese through naturalisation.  It is the Chinese who want to become non-Chinese.  The assumption is, nobody wants Chinese citizenship.  So who cares. 

Such a modest people.

Part of the reason, I think, is because China seldom found itself short on manpower  ;)

Japan's nationalisation process isn't that hard from what I've heard and looking at the rules.
The trouble with it that stops many going through it is it requires renouncing your previous citizenship and most westerners just don't see the point of going through the trouble.
I think a lot of the perception of Japanese difficulty comes from their census not recording ethnicity or the vast majority of foreigners thus giving 99% Japanese figures.

Totally agree with Lord Patten's comments:

Quote
Hong Kong's last British governor criticizes China over proposed national security legislation
Dake Kang
BEIJING
The Associated Press
Published June 5, 2020

The last British governor of Hong Kong criticized the Chinese government on Friday over proposed national security legislation, calling it part of an "Orwellian" drive to eliminate opposition in violation of the agreement on handing the territory over to Beijing.

Chris Patten defended London's announcement that it would grant residency and a path to citizenship for nearly 3 million Hong Kong residents if Beijing goes through with passage of the legislation.

The law is seen as potentially imposing severe restrictions on freedom of speech and opposition political activity in the former British colony that was handed over to Chinese rule in 1997. China has denounced the offer of citizenship as a violation of its sovereignty.

"If they've broken the (Sino-British) Joint Declaration, if they've thrown it overboard, how can they then use the joint declaration as though it stops us doing something that's a sovereign right of ours?" said Patten, now chancellor of the University of Oxford, in an online talk with reporters.

The declaration is a bilateral treaty signed as part of the handover process. China has essentially declared it null and void, while Britain says Beijing is reneging on its commitments made in the document that was supposed to be remain in effect until 2047.

China shocked many of Hong Kong's 7.5 million people when it announced earlier this month that it will enact a national security law for the city, which was promised a high level of autonomy outside of foreign and defence affairs.

An earlier push to pass security legislation was shelved after massive Hong Kong street protests against it in 2003. However, Beijing appeared to lose patience after months of sometimes violent anti-government protests in Hong Kong last year that China said was an attempt to split the territory off from the rest of the country.

Patten said the security legislation is unnecessary because Hong Kong's legal code already includes provisions to combat terrorism, financial crimes and other threats to security.

"What Beijing wants is something which deals with those rather worrying Orwellian crimes like sedition, whatever that may be," Patten said.

China may also be seeking grounds to disqualify opposition candidates from running in September's election for the local legislature by accusing them of being disloyal, he said.

Beijing has ignored promises that Hong Kong could democratize of its own accord after the handover, Patten said. The U.S. should unite with other democratic countries to oppose underhanded tactics by Beijing, he said.

"It's the Chinese Communist Party which attacks us, which hectors, which bullies, which tells companies which have roots in our countries, that unless they do what China wants, they won't get any business in China," Patten said. "That's the way the Mafia behave, and the rest of the world shouldn't put up with it, because if we do, liberal democracies are going to be screwed."

It really shouldn't come as a shock that they decided to impose the national security law. 

QuoteArticle 23 of the Hong Kong Basic Law provides that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region "shall enact laws on its own to prohibit any act of treason, secession, sedition, subversion against the Central People's Government, or theft of state secrets, to prohibit foreign political organizations or bodies from conducting political activities in the Region, and to prohibit political organizations or bodies of the Region from establishing ties with foreign political organizations or bodies."

This was added to the Basic Law after Tiananmen.  Basically, the party wanted to prevent HK from becoming a safe haven for anti-party people.  In 1990 or so, they wanted to write the national security law and include it in the Basic Law.  There was a lot of push back, and the party compromised by adding the "on its own" part. 

The Basic Law is supposed to last 50 years after 1997.  This year is 2020, 23 years after the handover, i.e. almost reaching the halfway point.  Last year HK was rocked by almost continuous riots, with lots of people openly calling for secession, asking for foreign military intervention (Mr Trump please send the marines to liberate us), asking for the destruction of the HK economy as a bargaining chip, etc.  There was no sign that HK would implement Article 23.

Is it any surprise or totally unreasonable for Beijing to consider that HK has failed to safeguard national security?  They did wait 23 years for HK to implement that Article on our own.  We didn't.  A reasonable person would probably be wondering if the other party had no intention of fulfilling their part of the bargain if he failed to act after 23 years. 

Is there any debate in You Kay over all HKs vs. just the 3 million?

Honestly I always thought that the 50 years 2 systems, 1 country approach was in the joint declaration, which Hong Kong wasn't a party to. So is the party in breach China?

QuoteIs there any debate in You Kay over all HKs vs. just the 3 million?

There is some. I think the next focus will be on making sure it's easy for the family members of the 3 million to get residence here - especially the young, riotous family members :lol:

Eg - from Johnson's former magazine:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EZstKO-XYAMBs3V?format=jpg&name=large)

Nice touch with the umbrellas.

The umbrellas look odd to me.  Presumably one uses an umbrella to slow down the fall and land safely, right?  The landscape is clearly of Hong Kong, not Britain.  So it implies that Britain is giving Hong Kongers tools to land...in Hong Kong?  I just don't get it. 

Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2020, 03:46:59 PM
Nice touch with the umbrellas.

Mary Poppins would be proud. :D

Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2020, 03:50:19 PM
The umbrellas look odd to me.  Presumably one uses an umbrella to slow down the fall and land safely, right?  The landscape is clearly of Hong Kong, not Britain.  So it implies that Britain is giving Hong Kongers tools to land...in Hong Kong?  I just don't get it.

They're flying out of HK like Mary Poppins.

Shelf: That 3 million seems very classist to me.  As if they are "our kind of people" (like the knighted Chinese lady who gave the speech way back) but we sure don't want everyone.  Kind of weiird.

If you need a law to ban secession then you're a shit country.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2020, 03:50:19 PM
The umbrellas look odd to me.  Presumably one uses an umbrella to slow down the fall and land safely, right?  The landscape is clearly of Hong Kong, not Britain.  So it implies that Britain is giving Hong Kongers tools to land...in Hong Kong?  I just don't get it.

Using the umbrellas Mary Poppins-style to fly away.

City on the ground is HK, which a Chinese dragon stomping through the streets.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2020, 03:53:14 PM
Shelf: That 3 million seems very classist to me.  As if they are "our kind of people" (like the knighted Chinese lady who gave the speech way back) but we sure don't want everyone.  Kind of weiird.

I don't get the class angle. The 3 million is the people who are already eligible for a British passport (just not a full British passport). They're the people who were there at handover.

The umbrellas are also a symbol of the Pan Democratic movement so it works in two different ways.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2020, 03:55:17 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2020, 03:53:14 PM
Shelf: That 3 million seems very classist to me.  As if they are "our kind of people" (like the knighted Chinese lady who gave the speech way back) but we sure don't want everyone.  Kind of weiird.

I don't get the class angle. The 3 million is the people who are already eligible for a British passport (just not a full British passport). They're the people who were there at handover.

So everyone who resided in HK in 97 is eligible?

Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2020, 03:55:50 PM
The umbrellas are also a symbol of the Pan Democratic movement so it works in two different ways.

Pretty sure Mono knew that part...

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2020, 03:55:17 PM
I don't get the class angle. The 3 million is the people who are already eligible for a British passport (just not a full British passport). They're the people who were there at handover.

Oh is that right?  Then you're good.  Carry on.

To be clear, the colonial subjects and their descendents, right?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2020, 03:53:14 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2020, 03:50:19 PM
The umbrellas look odd to me.  Presumably one uses an umbrella to slow down the fall and land safely, right?  The landscape is clearly of Hong Kong, not Britain.  So it implies that Britain is giving Hong Kongers tools to land...in Hong Kong?  I just don't get it.

They're flying out of HK like Mary Poppins.

Shelf: That 3 million seems very classist to me.  As if they are "our kind of people" (like the knighted Chinese lady who gave the speech way back) but we sure don't want everyone.  Kind of weiird.

Oh ok.  First time I have heard of Mary Poppins. 

I think if someone decides to give you a gift, you sound ungrateful if you say the gift is not large enough? 

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2020, 03:55:17 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2020, 03:53:14 PM
Shelf: That 3 million seems very classist to me.  As if they are "our kind of people" (like the knighted Chinese lady who gave the speech way back) but we sure don't want everyone.  Kind of weiird.

I don't get the class angle. The 3 million is the people who are already eligible for a British passport (just not a full British passport). They're the people who were there at handover.

There should be more to it.  HK had a population of 6 million or so at the handover. 

Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2020, 03:57:37 PM
Oh ok.  First time I have heard of Mary Poppins. 

:blink:

Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2020, 03:56:29 PM
So everyone who resided in HK in 97 is eligible?

No I think it's the people who registered pre-handover (and any people who would become stateless on handover which I think largely was an issue for migrant workers). So they already have a form of British nationality and can get a passport. They are eligible.

Quote from: Barrister on June 05, 2020, 03:56:51 PM

Quote from: Valmy on June 05, 2020, 03:55:50 PM
The umbrellas are also a symbol of the Pan Democratic movement so it works in two different ways.

Pretty sure Mono knew that part...

I know just clarifying why I thought it was a nice touch.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2020, 03:59:30 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2020, 03:57:37 PM
Oh ok.  First time I have heard of Mary Poppins. 

:blink:

Why is that surprising?  It is an old movie, I think?  I haven't seen it. 

Well the sequel just came out a few years ago :lol:

But it is also a very British book series. So the intended audience, British readers, would understand.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2020, 03:57:10 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2020, 03:55:17 PM
I don't get the class angle. The 3 million is the people who are already eligible for a British passport (just not a full British passport). They're the people who were there at handover.

Oh is that right?  Then you're good.  Carry on.

To be clear, the colonial subjects and their descendents, right?

Nope. As I say I think family members will be the next big thing. Registration stopped on handover because Hong Kong became part of China and you don't inherit it.

It is worth saying there is a general campaign to get rid of the multiple types of British citizen because that is very much a colonial legacy that increasingly doesn't make sense.

I was very surprised that Canada didn't seem to have multiple layers of passports and citizenship like the UK.  When I landed in Canada I thought I would be on a path to get some sort of "second class Canadian citizenship" like the BNOs.  I was surprised they didn't have that and I would get the real deal. 

Oh and, like I have said before, do you really want to go through with this? 

QuoteChina warns 'there WILL be consequences' if Boris allows Hong Kong citizens to relocate
CHINA's ambassador to the UK has threatened that there will "for sure" be serious "consequences" for the Government if Boris Johnson goes ahead with his plan to intervene in the Hong Kong crisis.

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1291891/China-news-warning-Boris-Johnson-Hong-Kong-residence-security-law-Chen-Wen

There goes your idea for unhappy people to just leave mono.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2020, 04:22:50 PM
There goes your idea for unhappy people to just leave mono.

I still think that way.  Much better for unhappy people to leave.  That's the long-term fix to HK's problem.  There are lots of rich, skilled, obedient Mainlanders who are happy to come to HK, so we aren't losing much. 

Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2020, 04:25:21 PM
I still think that way.  Much better for unhappy people to leave.  That's the long-term fix to HK's problem.  There are lots of rich, skilled, obedient Mainlanders who are happy to come to HK, so we aren't losing much.

Beijing just said it disagrees with you.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2020, 04:29:24 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2020, 04:25:21 PM
I still think that way.  Much better for unhappy people to leave.  That's the long-term fix to HK's problem.  There are lots of rich, skilled, obedient Mainlanders who are happy to come to HK, so we aren't losing much.

Beijing just said it disagrees with you.

So it disagrees with me.  It isn't like the Chinese ambassador to the UK can stop people from leaving.  On an anecdotal basis, I hear lots of people are considering leaving, for different reasons.  Insane housing prices, poor living conditions, the national security law, no democracy, don't want their children to become rioters, etc etc.   

I mean if you are a homeowner in HK, your flat is worth quite a lot.  The thinking is, just sell it and move to somewhere cheap and have a good life.  Like Canada. 

Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2020, 04:32:47 PM
So it disagrees with me.  It isn't like the Chinese ambassador to the UK can stop people from leaving.  On an anecdotal basis, I hear lots of people are considering leaving, for different reasons.  Insane housing prices, poor living conditions, the national security law, no democracy, don't want their children to become rioters, etc etc.

Beijing can very easily stop anyone from leaving HK.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2020, 04:16:36 PM
Oh and, like I have said before, do you really want to go through with this? 

Yeah :)

Although I think you're right. I think China will bluster and quietly let a lot of trouble-makers go. But as I say I hope we work to go futher on Hong Kong but also more widely to begin to disentangle our economies.

Interestingly an international working group of Parliamentarians have just launched in different countries (UK, US, Germany, Sweden, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, European Parliament, Norway) from left and right (GOP, Dems, Tories, Labour, Greens, Liberals etc) to focus on this sort of issue.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2020, 04:35:30 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2020, 04:32:47 PM
So it disagrees with me.  It isn't like the Chinese ambassador to the UK can stop people from leaving.  On an anecdotal basis, I hear lots of people are considering leaving, for different reasons.  Insane housing prices, poor living conditions, the national security law, no democracy, don't want their children to become rioters, etc etc.

Beijing can very easily stop anyone from leaving HK.

Not really.  There are costs to political moves.  The national security law already cost a lot in terms of diplomatic fallout, lost of investor confidence, etc.  Not letting people go would be a hundred times worse. 

I find it laughable that Beijing is warning of consequences and whining over Britain taking counter-action against China's breach of their treaty.

There is increasing talk among pro-Beijing heavyweights that, anyone who accepts Boris Johnson's BNO offer will lose their HK citizenship, residency and voting rights. 

Quote from: Monoriu on June 06, 2020, 05:55:12 PM
There is increasing talk among pro-Beijing heavyweights that, anyone who accepts Boris Johnson's BNO offer will lose their HK citizenship, residency and voting rights.

:lmfao: "You can't leave! We're kicking you out!"

If true, that is going to have a pretty significant effect.

Millions of people in HK have citizenship in other places, including me.  Generally, people want to have the best of both worlds.  If you want to make money, to climb the career ladder, more opportunities, Hong Kong is the place.  If you want political participation, better living environment, cheaper housing, better welfare, more humane education for your children etc, you want to go to the West.  This is not a binary decision as lots of people move around constantly.  Some people leave their families in Canada and work in Hong Kong.  Or they stay in Hong Kong, make money for a few years, then take a break in Australia for a while.  When money runs out, they come back etc.

If this is allowed, then taking Boris Johnson's offer is an easy decision.  Go grab the passport and residency rights in the UK, then come back to make money.

If moving around is not an option, then this changes the calculus quite a bit.  Then the people who will go to the UK will tend to be retirees, those who can't make money in HK anyway, and those who value democracy above all else. 

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2020, 04:03:06 PM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 05, 2020, 03:57:10 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 05, 2020, 03:55:17 PM
I don't get the class angle. The 3 million is the people who are already eligible for a British passport (just not a full British passport). They're the people who were there at handover.

Oh is that right?  Then you're good.  Carry on.

To be clear, the colonial subjects and their descendents, right?

Nope. As I say I think family members will be the next big thing. Registration stopped on handover because Hong Kong became part of China and you don't inherit it.

It is worth saying there is a general campaign to get rid of the multiple types of British citizen because that is very much a colonial legacy that increasingly doesn't make sense.

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.

Interesting - a poll on allowing Hong Kong British passport holders to live and work in the UK, with a route to citizenship (basically residence for x year - I'm not sure how many). Pretty clear majority support and pretty consistent. Overall 56% support it, 57% of Tories and Labour, 65% of the Lib Dems, 52% of Brexit Party supporters and support across generations too - 59% of old people back it and 52% of young folk.

This is an unusually consistent popular policy. Which is nice because it's something good and moral and I support it. And normally when I see interesting polling about a clear majority of British people supporting thing it's something insanely authoritarian like castrating all sex offenders or sending in the army to enforce social distancing in a park.

Good. The policy is only at least 23 years late after all.

We should have done this in 1997.

Surprised to see even brexit party supporters on the right side in this.

Chair of the Commons Foreign Policy Select Committee making a point I've found weird about China's approach in recent years:

QuoteTalking to a lobbyist about Huawei today I was told any change in policy would lead to punishment from Beijing. Interesting.

So we should deepen our dependence on a state that threatens us so that when they threaten us in the future they have more power.

Odd.

Edit: It reminds me of Trump, they keep saying the quiet part out loud.

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2020, 03:59:17 AM
Chair of the Commons Foreign Policy Select Committee making a point I've found weird about China's approach in recent years:

QuoteTalking to a lobbyist about Huawei today I was told any change in policy would lead to punishment from Beijing. Interesting.

So we should deepen our dependence on a state that threatens us so that when they threaten us in the future they have more power.

Odd.

Edit: It reminds me of Trump, they keep saying the quiet part out loud.

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. 

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.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 11, 2020, 04:10:42 AM
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.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 11, 2020, 04:10:42 AM
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.

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

Quote from: Sheilbh on June 11, 2020, 10:43:38 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 11, 2020, 04:10:42 AM
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. 

Quote from: Tonitrus on June 11, 2020, 12:41:45 PM
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. 

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.

Quote from: Zoupa on June 06, 2020, 07:49:48 PM

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?

Quote from: viper37 on June 11, 2020, 07:23:59 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 06, 2020, 07:49:48 PM

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. 

Quote from: viper37 on June 11, 2020, 07:23:59 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on June 06, 2020, 07:49:48 PM

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 :frog:

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.

Quote from: The Larch on June 12, 2020, 04:20:06 AM
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.

Quote from: The Brain on June 12, 2020, 04:21:52 AM

Quote from: The Larch on June 12, 2020, 04:20:06 AM
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.

QuoteAndrew 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

Lord Green? Is he a pimp or a rapper?

Quote from: The Brain on June 13, 2020, 06:32:30 PM
Lord Green? Is he a pimp or a rapper?

He is a Lord.  I am sure he is an honourable and distinguished person.   :bowler:

Too bad his honorable, distinguished ancestors weren't separated from their heads.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on June 13, 2020, 07:04:21 PM
Too bad his honorable, distinguished ancestors weren't separated from their heads.

He's a life peer, by Cameron. It was fairly controversial at the time because Migration Watch's use of statistics has been inaccurate, lots of sort of tendentious stats to whip up fury.

His bio also doesn't mention that he's currently a director of the British Syrian Society which is basically a PR exercise for the Assad regime.

So quite - honourable and distinguished.

Not sure keeping the nomenclature makes it any better.

An update now the law has passed:

QuoteChina is breaking Hong Kong treaty with UK, says Boris Johnson
PM denounces new security law and promises bespoke visa for 2.9 million Hongkongers
Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor
Wed 1 Jul 2020 14.32 BST
Last modified on Wed 1 Jul 2020 14.54 BST

Boris Johnson denounced China's imposition of a security law on Hong Kong as a "clear and serious" violation of its treaty with Britain, vowing to introduce a bespoke five-year visa for as many as 2.9 million Hong Kong citizens with British national (overseas) status.

Speaking at prime minister's questions on Wednesday he said the law introduced by the Chinese government constituted a clear and serious breach of the Sino-British Joint Declaration, signed in 1984 and aimed at smoothing the transition when the territory was handed back to China in 1997.

The UK believes Beijing's move violates Hong Kong's autonomy and is in direct conflict with the territory's Basic Law, its mini-constitution. The law also threatens the freedoms and rights protected by the joint declaration.

The prime minister said: "We have made clear that if China continued down this path we would introduce a new route to those with British national (overseas) status to enter the UK granting them limited leave to remain with the ability to live and work in the UK and thereafter to apply for citizenship, and that is precisely what we will do now."

The foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, promised the UK would honour its commitment to the people of Hong Kong. "We will grant BN(O)s five years' limited leave to remain, with the right to work or study. After these five years, they will be able to apply for settled status.

"After further 12 months with settled status, they will be able to apply for citizenship.
 This is a special, bespoke, set of arrangements developed for the unique circumstances we face," Raab told MPs.


He added: "All those with BN(O) status will be eligible, as will their family dependants who are usually resident in Hong Kong. The Home Office will put in place a simple, streamlined, application process. There will be no quota on numbers."

Describing the Chinese moves as "a grave and deeply disturbing step", he warned that China would erode trust "in its willingness to keep its word and live up to its promises".

But Raab set out no specific plans to sanction China either collectively or by punishing individual officials through new legislation due to be introduced by the Foreign Office this month after considerable delay. He said the legislation would be published before the recess and it would include the first designations, but did not specify if Chinese officials would be included.

Raab instead pointed to a resolution passed by the UN Human Rights Council supported by 27 other countries condemning China, saying it was a foretaste of the alliance he was seeking to build.

He said he was hopeful that other countries in south-east Asia would also offer asylum to Hong Kong citizens wanting to leave.

The shadow foreign secretary, Lisa Nandy, welcomed the citizenship offer but pressed Raab to urge UK businesses in Hong Kong such as Standard Chartered not to be complicit in the repression. She also urged the government to ensure that the BN(O) offer did not become available only to the wealthy. BN(O) status is only available to those born before 1997, omitting many younger protesters.

Nandy also called for an inquiry into the role of the Chinese mobile phone technology firm Huawei in the UK's 5G network and in nuclear power. She said she feared the Treasury still regarded Chinese investment as "a central plank of the UK recovery and the government approach remains deeply confused".

Raab said it was a sobering day for Hong Kong, and pointed to signs that protesters were being arrested or threatened with arrest under the new legislation.

He then detailed his analysis of how the legislation breached both the Basic Law and the joint declaration.

He pointed out: "The imposition of this legislation by the government in Beijing, rather than it being left to Hong Kong's own institutions, was in direct conflict with article 23 of China's own Basic Law for Hong Kong ... which affirms that Hong Kong should bring forward national security legislation on its own."

The Basic Law, he said, "only allows Beijing to directly impose laws in a very limited number of cases, such as for the purposes of defence and foreign affairs, or in exceptional circumstances in which the National People's Congress declares a state of war or a state of emergency".

"None of those exceptions apply here.
 Nor has the National People's Congress sought to justify this law on any such basis."

He added that the legislation "contains a slew of measures that directly threaten the freedoms and rights protected by the joint declaration", including the "potentially wide-ranging ability of the mainland authorities to take jurisdiction over certain cases, without any independent oversight, and to try those cases in the Chinese courts".

Raab said the measures "represent a flagrant assault on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly". He highlighted extraterritorial clauses in the law that implied words spoken in the UK might be cause for arrest in Hong Kong.

The laws gave Hong Kong's chief executive, rather than the chief justice, the power to appoint judges to hear national security cases – "a move that clearly risks undermining the independence of Hong Kong's judiciary".

He also condemned the establishment of a new Office for Safeguarding National Security in Hong Kong run by the mainland authorities.

The office has wide-ranging powers directly intruding on the responsibility of the Hong Kong authorities to maintain public order.

He said "China has broken its promise to the people of Hong Kong under its own laws. 
China has breached its international obligations to the United Kingdom under the joint declaration.
"


Taking a restrained tone that may frustrate some backbenchers, he stressed: "We want a positive relationship with China. We recognise its growth, its stature and the powerful role it can play."


He added: "It is precisely because we respect China as a leading member of the international community that we expect the Chinese government to meet its international obligations, and live up to its international responsibilities."

Hong Kong's autonomy was guaranteed under the "one country, two systems" agreement enshrined in the 1984 joint declaration signed by the then Chinese premier, Zhao Ziyang, and British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher.

The Foreign Office said: "There are 349,881 holders of BN(O) passports and the government estimates there are around 2.9m BN(O)s currently in Hong Kong. The scheme is for eligible BN(O) status holders and their immediate family dependants."

I feel like the detail about immediate family dependants is new and positive which is good because it will hopefully help some of the young "rioters" out.

Please don't validate Mono's newspeak.

What is meant with "dependent" here? - the way the word usually means the one with BNO would have to be the main breadwinner.
What if its a Hong Konger who is a house wife to a working husband from elsewhere?

I have said it before and I will say it again.  It is best for everybody for the rioters to leave.  The long-term solution to Hong Kong's political problems is large scale population movement.  Those who don't like the political system, can't afford living in Hong Kong, can't compete with the Mainland workers and consumers etc leave.  A new generation of rich, productive and obedient Mainlanders move in. 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 01, 2020, 07:59:31 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again.  It is best for everybody for the rioters to leave.  The long-term solution to Hong Kong's political problems is large scale population movement.  Those who don't like the political system, can't afford living in Hong Kong, can't compete with the Mainland workers and consumers etc leave.  A new generation of rich, productive and obedient Mainlanders move in.

This should improve your social obedience score no end.

Quote from: mongers on July 01, 2020, 08:27:39 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 01, 2020, 07:59:31 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again.  It is best for everybody for the rioters to leave.  The long-term solution to Hong Kong's political problems is large scale population movement.  Those who don't like the political system, can't afford living in Hong Kong, can't compete with the Mainland workers and consumers etc leave.  A new generation of rich, productive and obedient Mainlanders move in.

This should improve your social obedience score no end.

I come to languish to say what I can't say in real life but what I really want to say  :)

Quote from: Monoriu on July 01, 2020, 07:59:31 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again.  It is best for everybody for the rioters to leave.  The long-term solution to Hong Kong's political problems is large scale population movement.  Those who don't like the political system, can't afford living in Hong Kong, can't compete with the Mainland workers and consumers etc leave.  A new generation of rich, productive and obedient Mainlanders move in. 

We'll see how obedient those mainlanders are.

Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2020, 09:34:26 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 01, 2020, 07:59:31 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again.  It is best for everybody for the rioters to leave.  The long-term solution to Hong Kong's political problems is large scale population movement.  Those who don't like the political system, can't afford living in Hong Kong, can't compete with the Mainland workers and consumers etc leave.  A new generation of rich, productive and obedient Mainlanders move in. 

We'll see how obedient those mainlanders are.

It is about expectations.  The majority of Hong Kongers see their living standards decline in the past two decades.  It is the opposite for Mainlanders.  A Mainlander doesn't have access to Google, Facebook, Youtube etc.  They have to bribe a doctor before they get treated in a public hospital.  In HK, they have free access to the internet, and don't have to bribe doctors or civil servants.  They will see coming to HK as an improvement.  The HK government maintaining the "no preferential treatment for HKers" policy is beneficial to Mainlanders.  They have a stake in keeping the status quo.  It is the HKers who want change. 

The shift in opinion on this in the last 30 years is incredible:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Eb3gP_0WsAI_1ce?format=jpg&name=small)

Edit: And Australia is considering setting up an assylum scheme too, sounds like the cabinet will take a decision soon.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 01, 2020, 09:44:36 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 01, 2020, 09:34:26 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 01, 2020, 07:59:31 PM
I have said it before and I will say it again.  It is best for everybody for the rioters to leave.  The long-term solution to Hong Kong's political problems is large scale population movement.  Those who don't like the political system, can't afford living in Hong Kong, can't compete with the Mainland workers and consumers etc leave.  A new generation of rich, productive and obedient Mainlanders move in. 

We'll see how obedient those mainlanders are.

It is about expectations.  The majority of Hong Kongers see their living standards decline in the past two decades.  It is the opposite for Mainlanders.  A Mainlander doesn't have access to Google, Facebook, Youtube etc.  They have to bribe a doctor before they get treated in a public hospital.  In HK, they have free access to the internet, and don't have to bribe doctors or civil servants.  They will see coming to HK as an improvement.  The HK government maintaining the "no preferential treatment for HKers" policy is beneficial to Mainlanders.  They have a stake in keeping the status quo.  It is the HKers who want change. 

They will see HK as an improvement.... Which is day by day being made less of one.
I wonder how long the unfiltered Internet will last.

Quote from: Monoriu on May 30, 2020, 04:06:57 AM
Hong Kong's success is, to a large extent, attributable to crazy policies on the Mainland like the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution etc.  Those policies made the Mainlanders lose their brains.  So HKers were the only ones left with them.  Once the crazy policies were removed and the Mainlanders got their brains back, there was nothing really that special about HK brains.

No that's not quite right.  Hong Kong had until very recently as -- Singapore still has -- a key niche in international trade and finance that e.g. Shanghai can't fill despite its quality infrastructure and work force.  Investors will always prefer a location that reliably respects the rule of law.  Hong Kong did, the PRC doesn't.

Yeah - Mono's point may describe Hong Kong up to the 80s but that doesn't explain its success for the last few decades.

I continue to have confidence in Hong Kong's prosperity.  The real question is who benefits from it. 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 02:00:29 AM
I continue to have confidence in Hong Kong's prosperity.  The real question is who benefits from it.

Well the police are working hard to ensure that gets answered, don't they.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 02:00:29 AM
I continue to have confidence in Hong Kong's prosperity.  The real question is who benefits from it. 

Serious question now that you brought it up though. Don't you worry about the Chinese internet filters being stretched over to HK?
Oh sure, you can always use a vpn, probably do already... But I've also heard the Chinese government has a habit of occasionally shutting down popular VPNs. If they made a habit of that...

Quote from: Tyr on July 04, 2020, 05:05:59 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 02:00:29 AM
I continue to have confidence in Hong Kong's prosperity.  The real question is who benefits from it. 

Serious question now that you brought it up though. Don't you worry about the Chinese internet filters being stretched over to HK?
Oh sure, you can always use a vpn, probably do already... But I've also heard the Chinese government has a habit of occasionally shutting down popular VPNs. If they made a habit of that...

Internet filter would probably endanger HK's financial status much more so than the National Security Law.  Beijing understands that. 

No, I don't use VPN. 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 05:08:13 AM

Quote from: Tyr on July 04, 2020, 05:05:59 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 02:00:29 AM
I continue to have confidence in Hong Kong's prosperity.  The real question is who benefits from it. 

Serious question now that you brought it up though. Don't you worry about the Chinese internet filters being stretched over to HK?
Oh sure, you can always use a vpn, probably do already... But I've also heard the Chinese government has a habit of occasionally shutting down popular VPNs. If they made a habit of that...

Internet filter would probably endanger HK's financial status much more so than the National Security Law.  Beijing understands that. 

No, I don't use VPN. 

But the more HK becomes China why would it keep it financial status over the long term? At least Macau has its gambling to keep it special.

Because it is in Beijing's interest to keep HK's financial status.  The majority of foreign capital flow into China still goes through Hong Kong.  Beijing has tried many times to build an alternative financial hub, and so far it has failed. 

It might actually work now. Hasn't worked in the past because HK was a viable, stable, alternative. That isn't the case anymore.

Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2020, 06:41:23 AM
It might actually work now. Hasn't worked in the past because HK was a viable, stable, alternative. That isn't the case anymore.

Hong Kong is still the best place in China for a financial hub.  Maybe a little less attractive than before, but people will still pick HK over say Shanghai as far as financial services go. 

Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2020, 06:41:23 AM
It might actually work now. Hasn't worked in the past because HK was a viable, stable, alternative. That isn't the case anymore.

Yeah I mean Hong Kong will still be better than any Chinese city. The bigger threat I think is Singapore.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 04, 2020, 07:31:31 AM

Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2020, 06:41:23 AM
It might actually work now. Hasn't worked in the past because HK was a viable, stable, alternative. That isn't the case anymore.

Yeah I mean Hong Kong will still be better than any Chinese city. The bigger threat I think is Singapore.

The problem with Singapore is that it isn't China.  Hong Kong's greatest strength is stock listing of Mainland companies.  They will choose HK over Singapore and Shanghai.  They may choose New York or London, but now that the US and the UK don't get along with China anymore, more companies will choose HK. 

As far as stability goes, I think the National Security Law will help. 

Stable places are either democratic or autocratic.  Hong Kong is somewhere in between, and that's not a recipe for stability.  There is a written promise to go democratic, something which the government has no intention of fulfilling.  The people want to go democratic, but the government want to go the other way.  It was a stalemate in the past two decades.  The Law confirms which direction HK will go, and that, in the long-term, will reduce uncertainty. 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 07:48:51 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 04, 2020, 07:31:31 AM

Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2020, 06:41:23 AM
It might actually work now. Hasn't worked in the past because HK was a viable, stable, alternative. That isn't the case anymore.

Yeah I mean Hong Kong will still be better than any Chinese city. The bigger threat I think is Singapore.

The problem with Singapore is that it isn't China.  Hong Kong's greatest strength is stock listing of Mainland companies.  They will choose HK over Singapore and Shanghai.  They may choose New York or London, but now that the US and the UK don't get along with China anymore, more companies will choose HK.

Not being China is also one of Singapore advantages.  :P

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 04, 2020, 08:10:43 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 07:48:51 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 04, 2020, 07:31:31 AM

Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2020, 06:41:23 AM
It might actually work now. Hasn't worked in the past because HK was a viable, stable, alternative. That isn't the case anymore.

Yeah I mean Hong Kong will still be better than any Chinese city. The bigger threat I think is Singapore.

The problem with Singapore is that it isn't China.  Hong Kong's greatest strength is stock listing of Mainland companies.  They will choose HK over Singapore and Shanghai.  They may choose New York or London, but now that the US and the UK don't get along with China anymore, more companies will choose HK.

Not being China is also one of Singapore advantages.  :P

Sure.  But if you were the party chief of say PetroChina or the China Construction Bank and you want to go public, do you tell the Politburo that you want to list in Hong Kong or Singapore? 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 08:15:20 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on July 04, 2020, 08:10:43 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 07:48:51 AM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 04, 2020, 07:31:31 AM

Quote from: HVC on July 04, 2020, 06:41:23 AM
It might actually work now. Hasn't worked in the past because HK was a viable, stable, alternative. That isn't the case anymore.

Yeah I mean Hong Kong will still be better than any Chinese city. The bigger threat I think is Singapore.

The problem with Singapore is that it isn't China.  Hong Kong's greatest strength is stock listing of Mainland companies.  They will choose HK over Singapore and Shanghai.  They may choose New York or London, but now that the US and the UK don't get along with China anymore, more companies will choose HK.

Not being China is also one of Singapore advantages.  :P

Sure.  But if you were the party chief of say PetroChina or the China Construction Bank and you want to go public, do you tell the Politburo that you want to list in Hong Kong or Singapore?

Depends if tax fraud, embezzlement of public funds enter into account.  :P

Mono as you say, HK's advantage was that you had access to China without being in China. That is now gone. What you have instead is an occupied island where order is kept via force. I can easily see capital that wants to go to China going straight to the mainland. At least they don't run the risk of unrest. At least not nearly to the degree of HK.

Quote from: Tamas on July 04, 2020, 08:31:25 AM
Mono as you say, HK's advantage was that you had access to China without being in China. That is now gone. What you have instead is an occupied island where order is kept via force. I can easily see capital that wants to go to China going straight to the mainland. At least they don't run the risk of unrest. At least not nearly to the degree of HK.

We will see.  With the enactment of the National Security Law, I think unrest in HK will be largely tamed.  Those who are unhappy will either submit or go, and a lot of places are now willing to take them.  It has now been proven beyond doubt that large scale civil disobedience, even with 60-70% popular backing, will not yield political gains, and will even backfire. 

It isn't that easy for capital to go to the Mainland.  As of now, the Mainland capital accounts are still somewhat closed. 

I also think "maintaining order via force" is a massive simplification.  Force is a big part of it, but there are lots of other ways.  The most effective way is to make sure people lose their jobs if they oppose the government.  Peer pressure, buying all the media, dismantling and discrediting opposition organisations, patriotic education, etc etc.  It isn't just force.

Quote from: Tamas on July 04, 2020, 08:31:25 AM
Mono as you say, HK's advantage was that you had access to China without being in China. That is now gone. What you have instead is an occupied island where order is kept via force. I can easily see capital that wants to go to China going straight to the mainland. At least they don't run the risk of unrest. At least not nearly to the degree of HK.

Now who is falling into the trap of trying to debate Mono? :hmm:

Quote from: garbon on July 04, 2020, 09:07:16 AM

Quote from: Tamas on July 04, 2020, 08:31:25 AM
Mono as you say, HK's advantage was that you had access to China without being in China. That is now gone. What you have instead is an occupied island where order is kept via force. I can easily see capital that wants to go to China going straight to the mainland. At least they don't run the risk of unrest. At least not nearly to the degree of HK.

Now who is falling into the trap of trying to debate Mono? :hmm:

I am trying to open his eyes. He is cheering on the demise of his home.

(https://i.imgur.com/9kYvLQv.jpg)

You know what this means?  This photograph was taken yesterday, four days after the implementation of the National Security Law.  These people are lining up for the opportunity to buy a flat from a project called Sea to Sky.  These flats cost like US$2-3k per square foot.  They usually require a mortgage of 20-30 years, and an entire family's effort for the downpayment (parents, husband, wife).  There are a lot more buyers than flats available. 

What demise are you talking about?   :lol:

Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2020, 03:33:17 PM
It really shouldn't come as a shock that they decided to impose the national security law. 

After what that government has done in the past 20 years only the systematic mass murder of every man, woman, and child in Hong Kong would have been surprising. They generally never go that far.

Quote from: Valmy on July 04, 2020, 03:47:35 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on June 05, 2020, 03:33:17 PM
It really shouldn't come as a shock that they decided to impose the national security law. 

After what that government has done in the past 20 years only the systematic mass murder of every man, woman, and child in Hong Kong would have been surprising. They generally never go that far.

You must mean consistent and steady GDP growth in the past 20 years, otherwise I don't know what you are talking about  :P

Quote from: Tamas on July 04, 2020, 09:43:38 AM
I am trying to open his eyes.

lol

Quote from: Tamas on July 04, 2020, 09:43:38 AM
I am trying to open his eyes. He is cheering on the demise of his home.

Only time will open his eyes.  He waits 5 minutes after a catastrophic event and says. "what tsunami from an earthquake 100 miles away?  Look, there are people splashing around in the ocean right now, and it's already been five minutes!"

I'm actually okay with the Chinese occupation Government betraying their treaty with the UK.  It might make some people in their neighboring countries wake up as to what kind of government the Chinese actually have now.

I do appreciate the efforts of the British and others to evacuate as many of the victims as they can, since it makes an otherwise painful situation much less so.  As Mono points out, the creative people can leave, and the drones can stay and make HK just another Chinese city.

I grow up here.  I have been hearing the "Hong Kong will die/will become just another Chinese city etc" line since I was in primary school.  It hasn't happened.  As far as civil liberties go, we aren't worse than say Singapore or Shanghai.  And these places are doing quite well. 

The reaction from the markets is very mild.  Stock markets have gone up since the announcement of the National Security Law.  Housing prices are quite steady.  Mainlanders are still lining up to come. 

As I said, I remain confident in the economic outlook.  The only real question is who will benefit from the prosperity.  I predict that the rich will get richer, and there will be more Mainland immigrants and they will get an increasing share of the pie at the expense of HKers. 

I think the argument between the two sides can be distilled to, when a fortune 500 real estate tycoon sells a flat, can he sell to a Mainland party chief with suitcases of cash, or is he limited to selling the flat to a HK young couple who between them barely make 4k a month and have to borrow the US$500k downpayment from their parents?  If the answer is yes, the tycoon will be richer, the Mainland immigrant will be happy, the HK young couple will be left with no choice but to spend half their income to rent a 100 square feet flat.  If the answer is no, the tycoon will be poorer, the Mainland immigrant can't come to HK, and the HK couple will be able to buy a flat with a lower price.  The real argument is whether the people can elect a government that will be willing to make this happen, and the question has been settled.   

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 07:11:03 PM
I grow up here.  I have been hearing the "Hong Kong will die/will become just another Chinese city etc" line since I was in primary school.  It hasn't happened. 

You remind me of the old story about the guy who fell off the 50-story building.  The people on the 30th floor heard him say, as he passed, "so far, so good."

Quote from: grumbler on July 04, 2020, 07:13:34 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 07:11:03 PM
I grow up here.  I have been hearing the "Hong Kong will die/will become just another Chinese city etc" line since I was in primary school.  It hasn't happened. 

You remind me of the old story about the guy who fell off the 50-story building.  The people on the 30th floor heard him say, as he passed, "so far, so good."

Only time will tell.  But if the doomsayers have been wrong in the past 20-30 years, why do you think they will get it right this time? 

I am not just saying this, but I am actually staying here despite having Canadian and UK passports :contract:

Beijing may not care about the middle class Hong Kong people, but they certainly don't want Hong Kong to crash.  They have direct, personal financial stakes here.  The Mainland party chiefs who bought the flats with suitcases of cash?  Those are the politburo members' children, families, relatives, friends, underlings, old pals.  They invested many billions in the HK stockmarket, companies and real estate here.  Hong Kong's prosperity is their prosperity. 

Classic problem of induction.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2020, 07:46:22 PM
Classic problem of induction.

If that's the problem, then what is the solution?  :)

Invent a time machine.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 07:11:03 PM
I grow up here.  I have been hearing the "Hong Kong will die/will become just another Chinese city etc" line since I was in primary school.  It hasn't happened.  As far as civil liberties go, we aren't worse than say Singapore or Shanghai.  And these places are doing quite well. 

That's the question isn't it?  What advantage does HK have over Shanghai other than its distinct political-legal structure?
Of course the city won't die - Chinese second tier cities do fine.  But it does seem to be turning into another Chinese city.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on July 04, 2020, 09:37:44 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 07:11:03 PM
I grow up here.  I have been hearing the "Hong Kong will die/will become just another Chinese city etc" line since I was in primary school.  It hasn't happened.  As far as civil liberties go, we aren't worse than say Singapore or Shanghai.  And these places are doing quite well. 

That's the question isn't it?  What advantage does HK have over Shanghai other than its distinct political-legal structure?
Of course the city won't die - Chinese second tier cities do fine.  But it does seem to be turning into another Chinese city.

Sure the differences are narrowing.  But I think the differences are large enough that even if they are somewhat diminished, they are still sufficient to make Hong Kong prosperous.  Singapore doesn't grant a lot of civil liberties.  Yet people still prefer Singapore over say Jakarta.  The problems with Jakarta go beyond civil liberties. 

Singapore is authoritarian but it is run according to the rule of law by a competent and honest bureaucracy.  The HK civil service has historically commanded international respect, but its autonomy has been undermined.  The perception is that doing business on the mainland is much more risky then in HK or Singapore because contracts are more difficult to enforce, and the application of law and regulation generally is more arbitrary and less predictable.  The kind of stability that big investors worry about isn't whether their car has to detour around some college age kids protesting in the streets.  It's what happens if their $500 million dollar contract goes sour, they get an ICC arbitral judgment only to find the domestic courts won't enforce it against a favored local son.

What happened last year was a lot more than "some college kids protesting in the streets".  That described 2014, not 2019.  Emotions ran very high, to the point where 60-70% of the entire HK population felt that must force the government to do something.  Much of the city was basically in revolt.  Imagine if Nixon insisted in sending a lot more men to Vietnam, or Trump pardoning the Minneapolis police and insisting in no police reform whatsoever.  The HK government literally fought against 70% of the population for more than a year.  If the HK government and the police did not counteract, the whole city would ground to a halt. 

QuoteDemocracy Activists' Books Unavailable in Hong Kong Libraries After New Law

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/07/05/world/asia/05reuters-hongkong-protests-books.html?auth=link-dismiss-google1tap

Uncensored internet won't be far behind. Bye Mono!

They may take our lives. They may take our freedom. But they may never take our ANIME GIRLS!

Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 05, 2020, 10:12:14 AM
They may take our lives. They may take our freedom. But they may never take our ANIME GIRLS!

Namely if streamed or downloaded illicitly.  :P

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 08:49:19 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2020, 07:46:22 PM
Classic problem of induction.

If that's the problem, then what is the solution?  :)

Declare a category error and run like Hell.

Quote from: Zoupa on July 05, 2020, 10:01:49 AM

QuoteDemocracy Activists' Books Unavailable in Hong Kong Libraries After New Law

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/07/05/world/asia/05reuters-hongkong-protests-books.html?auth=link-dismiss-google1tap

Uncensored internet won't be far behind. Bye Mono!

You don't understand how civil servants think.  "Can't let this happen to my area".  I won't let these slogans appear in my responsible areas either.  There are entire dedicated teams responsible for managing public libraries.  They need to defend their area. 

Nobody is responsible for the internet :contract:  No one will feel compelled to defend it. 

Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2020, 12:19:23 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 08:49:19 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2020, 07:46:22 PM
Classic problem of induction.

If that's the problem, then what is the solution?  :)

Declare a category error and run like Hell.

I have answered this question a thousand times already.  There are no jobs in Canada, so the answer is still no  :sleep:

Quote from: Monoriu on July 05, 2020, 05:56:21 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on July 05, 2020, 10:01:49 AM

QuoteDemocracy Activists' Books Unavailable in Hong Kong Libraries After New Law

https://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2020/07/05/world/asia/05reuters-hongkong-protests-books.html?auth=link-dismiss-google1tap

Uncensored internet won't be far behind. Bye Mono!

You don't understand how civil servants think.  "Can't let this happen to my area".  I won't let these slogans appear in my responsible areas either.  There are entire dedicated teams responsible for managing public libraries.  They need to defend their area. 

Nobody is responsible for the internet :contract:  No one will feel compelled to defend it.

No compulsion necessary. If the system allows petty tyranny, some of your colleagues will jump at the chance.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 05, 2020, 07:14:36 PM


No compulsion necessary. If the system allows petty tyranny, some of your colleagues will jump at the chance.

The principle is, I cannot let people use my facilities to promote illegal stuff.  The people who manage the libraries can't let that happen.

The internet is not government facilities.  Nobody will get blamed; no civil servant will be fired if somebody said something on the internet.

 :lol:

Quote from: Monoriu on July 05, 2020, 07:07:54 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2020, 12:19:23 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 08:49:19 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2020, 07:46:22 PM
Classic problem of induction.

If that's the problem, then what is the solution?  :)

Declare a category error and run like Hell.

I have answered this question a thousand times already.  There are no jobs in Canada, so the answer is still no  :sleep:

When your ancestors fled to Hong Kong did they have jobs waiting for them?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2020, 09:48:26 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 05, 2020, 07:07:54 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 05, 2020, 12:19:23 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 04, 2020, 08:49:19 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 04, 2020, 07:46:22 PM
Classic problem of induction.

If that's the problem, then what is the solution?  :)

Declare a category error and run like Hell.

I have answered this question a thousand times already.  There are no jobs in Canada, so the answer is still no  :sleep:

When your ancestors fled to Hong Kong did they have jobs waiting for them?

Of course not.  But my father's family was fleeing from the Japanese operation Ichi-go.  I expect no such operation in the near future  :P

I am fine.  I really don't see the need to flee.  I obey the law, don't riot, don't protest, don't vote, etc.  Some people will leave, sure, and they have their own reasons.  Some of them may not be related to politics.  It is well-known that we have some of the most expensive real estate in the world.  So far the people who leave are in the small minority. 

Being apolitical did not protect hundreds of thousands from the camps in Xinjiang.  I have a feeling that there are plenty of civil servants who aren't "apolitical" on the mainland.  Civil servants who are instead quite politically reliable.  Rewarding supporters (or family members) with civil service jobs has a long history in the US.  Does China have a similar concept?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2020, 12:07:49 AM
Being apolitical did not protect hundreds of thousands from the camps in Xinjiang.  I have a feeling that there are plenty of civil servants who aren't "apolitical" on the mainland.  Civil servants who are instead quite politically reliable.  Rewarding supporters (or family members) with civil service jobs has a long history in the US.  Does China have a similar concept?

Hong Kong and Xinjiang are not really comparable. 

I don't really know the Mainland system, but I would imagine the answer to be yes.  Having said that the Mainland is quite meritocratic when it comes to the civil service.  There are exceptions, but my experience is that their officials are competent, especially on the national level. 

I would imagine that being politically reliable is crucial to all civil service around the world.  We call that political neutrality in Hong Kong.  All civil servants must be completely loyal to the Chief Executive in office.

I think Beijing will be very happy if all HKers are apolitical.  Beijing is happy with the status quo.  It is the HKers who want change and are thus not apolitical enough. 

Why is Xinjiang not comparable?

Interesting Gideon Rachman piece on Hong Kong v Singapore, which I think is basically true:
https://www.ft.com/content/0eb401dc-19ff-4cea-b353-67c0995f8903

Mono - what's the stuff in the national security law about "state secrets"? Just because from having some exposure to China's data sovereignty laws, they define "state secrets" incredibly broadly.

Quote from: Razgovory on July 06, 2020, 01:32:51 PM
Why is Xinjiang not comparable?

Xinjiang's problem is ethnic and religious.  Uighurs are not Han Chinese, and they are Muslims.  Xinjiang is a huge province, with low population density.  The world basically doesn't want to care about it, until confronted with strong evidence.  Xinjiang is easily one of the poorest provinces in China.

Hong Kong's population is almost entirely Han Chinese, and there are no religious issues.  It is a tiny place with one of the highest population densities in the world.  It is highly internationalised, with lots of expats and foreign media.  If somebody tosses a petrol bomb, the world will know about it.  Hong Kong is still, on a per capita basis, the richest place in China and one of the richest in the world. 

Its one of the most remarkable achievements of China that they have convinced foreigners who look different and speak a different language that they are the same people.
I have often wondered how different things might have been if China had developed and alphabet and Rome/Greece a syllabry.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 06, 2020, 01:47:45 PM
Interesting Gideon Rachman piece on Hong Kong v Singapore, which I think is basically true:
https://www.ft.com/content/0eb401dc-19ff-4cea-b353-67c0995f8903

Mono - what's the stuff in the national security law about "state secrets"? Just because from having some exposure to China's data sovereignty laws, they define "state secrets" incredibly broadly.

There is a paywall, so I can't read your article.

State Secrets.  Beijing's narrative is that Trump and the CIA are behind the riots.  Now, it is true that many Hong Kong riot leaders have spoken in the US Congress and other places to ask the US to sanction China/Hong Kong.  The pre-National Security Laws of Hong Kong did not criminalise that.  So the chief aim is to put those leaders in jail if they continue to ask for sanctions, and to expose the CIA people.  Of all the crimes in the National Security Law, this is probably the least understood area because there are no cases.  There are plenty of cases of people trying to disrupt the government, attacking the police, asking for foreign sanctions.  But so far I am not aware of any allegations of stealing state secrets. 

Quote from: Tyr on July 06, 2020, 04:09:40 PM
Its one of the most remarkable achievements of China that they have convinced foreigners who look different and speak a different language that they are the same people.
I have often wondered how different things might have been if China had developed and alphabet and Rome/Greece a syllabry.

The Chinese written language has been one of the pillars that holds China together.  Even today, the speaking language of many Chinese are different.  Cantonese, the language of Hong Kong, is not mutually intelligible with Mandarin.  The same goes for many other dialects. 

The written language however is the same throughout China.  The Chinese characters, unlike alphabets, are pretty much fixed.  It is very difficult to change them.  So they are the same throughout China over long periods of time.  The imperial examination system ensures that intellectuals will try to learn the same language and writing system, rather than trying to change it. 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 06, 2020, 04:14:49 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 06, 2020, 01:47:45 PM
Interesting Gideon Rachman piece on Hong Kong v Singapore, which I think is basically true:
https://www.ft.com/content/0eb401dc-19ff-4cea-b353-67c0995f8903

Mono - what's the stuff in the national security law about "state secrets"? Just because from having some exposure to China's data sovereignty laws, they define "state secrets" incredibly broadly.

There is a paywall, so I can't read your article.

State Secrets.  Beijing's narrative is that Trump and the CIA are behind the riots.  Now, it is true that many Hong Kong riot leaders have spoken in the US Congress and other places to ask the US to sanction China/Hong Kong.  The pre-National Security Laws of Hong Kong did not criminalise that.  So the chief aim is to put those leaders in jail if they continue to ask for sanctions, and to expose the CIA people.  Of all the crimes in the National Security Law, this is probably the least understood area because there are no cases.  There are plenty of cases of people trying to disrupt the government, attacking the police, asking for foreign sanctions.  But so far I am not aware of any allegations of stealing state secrets.

Sounds like "state secret" is whatever a sufficiently highly placed official will decide to label something.

Quote from: Tamas on July 06, 2020, 04:50:33 PM


Sounds like "state secret" is whatever a sufficiently highly placed official will decide to label something.

Have a problem with that?  You may thank the pan-democrats and rioters for successfully applying for and getting the law from Beijing :contract:

Quote from: Tamas on July 06, 2020, 04:50:33 PM
Sounds like "state secret" is whatever a sufficiently highly placed official will decide to label something.

Yeah. It's why I'm interested in what the actual crime is because under Chinese data sovereignty laws it's exceptionally broad. It's something along the lines of "things related to state security and national interests", but they don't have to be labelled "secret" to be a state secret - they include things about the economy, technology, development, science etc. It's notoriously difficult to work out what is and isn't a "state secret".

It'll be interesting to see if the Hong Kong courts refer to the Chinese approach on this given that it's a concept from mainland China, because if there are now criminal restrictions on sharing "state secrets" in Hong Kong then that is quite a significant change to the risk of operating there especially if you've got a data heavy business.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 06, 2020, 04:57:11 PM
Have a problem with that?  You may thank the pan-democrats and rioters for successfully applying for and getting the law from Beijing :contract:

You must be right, because no place without "pan-democrats and rioters" has laws anything like that. :contract:

To outsiders like me, it is obvious that Beijing was going to implement laws like this no matter what.  Emperor Xi does not share the global views of the old regime.  Hong Kong was allowing in too many foreign ideas even before there were demonstrations in favor of democracy.  All the demonstrations did was do away with the need of the ruling dynasty to pretend they were going to abide by their treaty obligations.  It's part and parcel with the new imperialism in the South China Sea.  China under the new regime has no need to do anything that the regime doesn't want to do.  It's Trumpism multiplied by 1.4 billion.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/08/china-great-firewall-descends-hong-kong-internet-users

Bye Mono.

Wow. Far quicker than expected. They're not going for a slow boil anymore but have decided to turn the heat up a few notches.

The internets are going out all over Hong Kong  We shall not see them connected again in our lifetime.  :(

I don't even know what they are talking about.  Everybody here continues to have access to Facebook, Youtube, Google etc.  All these are banned on the Mainland.

What people are really worried about is that they have said stuff like supporting HK independence, posting private, illegally obtained information on the police (such as their ID numbers) on Facebook, evidence that they participated in the riots, or aided the rioters etc.  That will make them liable to prosecution.  The day of reckoning has come, and they are deleting their accounts and posts. 

"I don't even know what they are talking about with this 'atomic bomb'  stuff.  That B-29 up there dropped its bomb more than 30 seconds ago, and nothing bad has happened."

- Hiroshima Mono, 6 August 1945, 0816:00, Hiroshima time.

Quote from: Maladict on July 08, 2020, 04:04:50 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/08/china-great-firewall-descends-hong-kong-internet-users

Bye Mono.

Oh no!

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门

Just making sure.

Quote from: grumbler on July 08, 2020, 06:11:37 PM
"I don't even know what they are talking about with this 'atomic bomb'  stuff.  That B-29 up there dropped its bomb more than 30 seconds ago, and nothing bad has happened."

- Hiroshima Mono, 6 August 1945, 0816:00, Hiroshima time.

It is no use arguing about this now.  Time will tell.  I propose that we revisit this topic in say half a year. 

He's not arguing, he's saying "I told you so" while you're still around to hear it.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on July 08, 2020, 08:40:18 PM
He's not arguing, he's saying "I told you so" while you're still around to hear it.

No, I am just pointing out that the observation that "it hasn't happened yet" is just an observation, not an argument based on the presentation of any evidence.

Quote from: Zoupa on July 08, 2020, 06:34:08 PM

Quote from: Maladict on July 08, 2020, 04:04:50 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/08/china-great-firewall-descends-hong-kong-internet-users

Bye Mono.

Oh no!

动态网自由门 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Free Tibet 六四天安門事件 The Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 天安門大屠殺 The Tiananmen Square Massacre 反右派鬥爭 The Anti-Rightist Struggle 大躍進政策 The Great Leap Forward 文化大革命 The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution 人權 Human Rights 民運 Democratization 自由 Freedom 獨立 Independence 多黨制 Multi-party system 台灣 臺灣 Taiwan Formosa 中華民國 Republic of China 西藏 土伯特 唐古特 Tibet 達賴喇嘛 Dalai Lama 法輪功 Falun Dafa 新疆維吾爾自治區 The Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region 諾貝爾和平獎 Nobel Peace Prize 劉暁波 Liu Xiaobo 民主 言論 思想 反共 反革命 抗議 運動 騷亂 暴亂 騷擾 擾亂 抗暴 平反 維權 示威游行 李洪志 法輪大法 大法弟子 強制斷種 強制堕胎 民族淨化 人體實驗 肅清 胡耀邦 趙紫陽 魏京生 王丹 還政於民 和平演變 激流中國 北京之春 大紀元時報 九評論共産黨 獨裁 專制 壓制 統一 監視 鎮壓 迫害 侵略 掠奪 破壞 拷問 屠殺 活摘器官 誘拐 買賣人口 遊進 走私 毒品 賣淫 春畫 賭博 六合彩 天安門 天安门 法輪功 李洪志 Winnie the Pooh 劉曉波动态网自由门

Just making sure.

Also

Xi Jinping is a massive piece of shit

QuoteBREAKING: #HongKongPolice have entered the office of the Public Opinion Research Institute, PORI, according to source. #RTHK is told that officers have a search warrant & accuses the survey body of dishonest use of computer. Source says police are trying to take away all PCs

From what I can see there's maybe two reasons for this. One is that PORI just did a poll on whether or not Hong Kong is still a free city, the other is that PORI are contracted to help run the pro-democracy camps' primaries.

Either way this is the risk for businesses in Hong Kong, it's not necessarily that it's a less liberal place than it was last week it's that it's a far less certain place than it was. That uncertainty might help the PRC government but it hugely removes the incentive of being in China and not the mainland. It's still probably just better if you need a location in China than mainland cities (but maybe not - arguably they're more stable still), but if you're needing a base in Asia then I feel like it'd be worth looking at places where you can predict whether what you and your staff do is illegal or not.

Edit: And adding to the uncertainty European and US banks in Hong Kong are reportedly conducting emergency audits of their clients to identify risks. Also the National Security Law makes it illegal for banks in Hong Kong to comply with international (US) sanctions against China or Hong Kong. So you either choose to do business in Hong Kong/China or the US - it's tough to see a way you can do both without breaking someone's laws. The impact will depend on the US sanctions list - but again this just adds to the uncertainty of working in Hong Kong as an international business now.

Edit: Also China's had a bit of a tantrum over Australia suspending their extradition treaty with Hong Kong. Australia's also been in discussions with Japan and they're talking about deepening the security relatinoship between Australia, the US, India and Japan ("the quad). The EU has also started to propose some measures - banning the sale of police equipment to Hong Kong, offering assylum for political activists and grants for scholarships for Hong Kong students.

Striking comment from the NZ foreign secretary that the law "fundamentally changed the environment for international engagement" because NZ is, by some distance, the most pro-China of the five eyes countries.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2020, 07:26:21 AM

QuoteBREAKING: #HongKongPolice have entered the office of the Public Opinion Research Institute, PORI, according to source. #RTHK is told that officers have a search warrant & accuses the survey body of dishonest use of computer. Source says police are trying to take away all PCs

From what I can see there's maybe two reasons for this. One is that PORI just did a poll on whether or not Hong Kong is still a free city, the other is that PORI are contracted to help run the pro-democracy camps' primaries.

It is not the first reason.   

Quote from: Monoriu on July 10, 2020, 08:56:46 AM
It is not the first reason.

Interesting - is there something specific to pollsters that makes them risky or do you think this would apply to other companies that provide services to pro-democracy parties/activists?

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2020, 09:10:43 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 10, 2020, 08:56:46 AM
It is not the first reason.

Interesting - is there something specific to pollsters that makes them risky or do you think this would apply to other companies that provide services to pro-democracy parties/activists?

That pollster is very pro-democratic.  I am not saying his polls are biased, but his political stance is very clear.  People who are familiar with HK's political scene won't be unfamiliar with him, and people will conclude that he doesn't run a normal business.  He is part of the pan-democratic establishment, and those who don't belong to that establishment don't have much to worry about. 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 10, 2020, 09:14:12 AM
That pollster is very pro-democratic.  I am not saying his polls are biased, but his political stance is very clear.  People who are familiar with HK's political scene won't be unfamiliar with him, and people will conclude that he doesn't run a normal business.  He is part of the pan-democratic establishment, and those who don't belong to that establishment don't have much to worry about.

Okay. What about other businesses though? You've mentioned the restaurants in the yellow economic circle, there's this pollster. I mean what about if you're the banker or lawyer for a pan-democractic party? Is that within the pan-democratic establishment or just a normal business providing services to the pan-democrats?

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2020, 09:31:40 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 10, 2020, 09:14:12 AM
That pollster is very pro-democratic.  I am not saying his polls are biased, but his political stance is very clear.  People who are familiar with HK's political scene won't be unfamiliar with him, and people will conclude that he doesn't run a normal business.  He is part of the pan-democratic establishment, and those who don't belong to that establishment don't have much to worry about.

Okay. What about other businesses though? You've mentioned the restaurants in the yellow economic circle, there's this pollster. I mean what about if you're the banker or lawyer for a pan-democractic party? Is that within the pan-democratic establishment or just a normal business providing services to the pan-democrats?

Banks would be fine.  A ton of pan-democrats are senior lawyers (or Queen's Counsels in the UK), so they don't need to hire lawyers.  They are the lawyers  :lol: Apple Daily, the largest pan-democratic newspaper, is finished.  The yellow economic circle are mostly tiny eateries.  They'll be targetted in many different ways, but my guess is they'll be fine if they leave the circle soon enough.  Many already have. 

I mean, if you are apolitical, you'll be fine. 

What percentage of government workers on the mainland and apolitical, that is to say not part of the Communist party?

Quote from: Razgovory on July 10, 2020, 09:45:36 AM
What percentage of government workers on the mainland and apolitical, that is to say not part of the Communist party?

No clue.  Civil servants in HK are barred from political activities. 

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 10, 2020, 09:31:40 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 10, 2020, 09:14:12 AM
That pollster is very pro-democratic.  I am not saying his polls are biased, but his political stance is very clear.  People who are familiar with HK's political scene won't be unfamiliar with him, and people will conclude that he doesn't run a normal business.  He is part of the pan-democratic establishment, and those who don't belong to that establishment don't have much to worry about.

Okay. What about other businesses though? You've mentioned the restaurants in the yellow economic circle, there's this pollster. I mean what about if you're the banker or lawyer for a pan-democractic party? Is that within the pan-democratic establishment or just a normal business providing services to the pan-democrats?

I think you are looking for certainties where none exists. The safety and fate of those people will depend on palace intrigues and other political developments ad hoc.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 10, 2020, 09:46:56 AM

Quote from: Razgovory on July 10, 2020, 09:45:36 AM
What percentage of government workers on the mainland and apolitical, that is to say not part of the Communist party?

No clue.  Civil servants in HK are barred from political activities.

Yes, you have told us repeatedly how civil servants in Hong Kong are not loyal to the Communist Party.

Interesting holding statement from the President of the UK Supreme Court (which traditionally provides judges to the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal).

QuoteStatement from the President of the UK Supreme Court, The Right Hon Lord Reed of Allermuir
17 July 2020

Until the return of Hong Kong by the UK to China in 1997, Hong Kong's final appeal court was the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London, whose judges were the members of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords. Following the Handover, the final appeal court became the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal. Article 82 of the Hong Kong Basic Law provides that 'the power of final adjudication of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be vested in the Court of Final Appeal of the Region, which may as required invite judges from other common law jurisdictions to sit on the Court of Final Appeal'.

At the time of the Handover, the then Lord Chancellor (the Rt Hon Lord Irvine of Lairg) and the Chief Justice of Hong Kong (the Hon Andrew Li) agreed that the House of Lords would provide two serving Law Lords to sit on the newly created Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal, as part of the UK's continuing commitment to safeguarding the rule of law in Hong Kong. Details of this agreement were announced by Lord Irvine in Hong Kong on 8 September 1997.

Ever since, two serving judges of the House of Lords and, since its establishment in 2009, the UK Supreme Court, have been provided in accordance with that agreement. They have made an important contribution to the work of the Court of Final Appeal, not only in civil and commercial cases, but also in cases concerned with rights of protest and free speech. Serving judges do not receive any additional remuneration for their work in Hong Kong, but a fee is paid to the Supreme Court. The Court of Final Appeal also includes retired judges from the UK and from other common law jurisdictions, including Australia and Canada.

Currently, I am the only serving judge provided under the agreement, as the other serving judge, Lady Hale, retired from the Supreme Court earlier this year and has not yet been replaced on the Hong Kong court. No serving UK judge has been scheduled to sit in Hong Kong this year.

The new security law contains a number of provisions which give rise to concerns. Its effect will depend upon how it is applied in practice. That remains to be seen. Undoubtedly, the judges of the Court of Final Appeal will do their utmost to uphold the guarantee in Article 85 of the Hong Kong Basic Law that 'the Courts of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference.' As the Chief Justice of Hong Kong, the Hon Geoffrey Ma, recently said: 'The independence of the Judiciary and the rule of law are cornerstones of the Hong Kong community, and they are guaranteed under the Basic Law. It remains the mission and the constitutional duty of the Hong Kong Judiciary to maintain and protect them.'

The Supreme Court supports the judges of Hong Kong in their commitment to safeguard judicial independence and the rule of law. It will continue to assess the position in Hong Kong as it develops, in discussion with the UK Government. Whether judges of the Supreme Court can continue to serve as judges in Hong Kong will depend on whether such service remains compatible with judicial independence and the rule of law.

In latest news UK is looking at suspending the extradition treaty we have with Hong Kong. And the Home Office of all places is apparently looking into setting up a settlement/residence scheme for young Hong Kongers who won't have BNO status:
https://inews.co.uk/news/politics/priti-patel-china-clash-hong-kong-556618

Build a new Hong Kong in the Falklands.

:lol: Someone semi-seriously suggested building a new Hong Kong in Lincolnshire. It's not the worst idea doing the rounds.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 19, 2020, 01:03:15 PM
:lol: Someone semi-seriously suggested building a new Hong Kong in Lincolnshire. It's not the worst idea doing the rounds.

Who will build it? Central/Eastern European workers?  :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 19, 2020, 01:03:15 PM
:lol: Someone semi-seriously suggested building a new Hong Kong in Lincolnshire. It's not the worst idea doing the rounds.

"Building a new HK" wasn't a new idea.  It was mentioned back in the 80s, during the negotiations between the UK and Mainland China over HK's future.  Some released UK government documents also talked about it.  Even now, some of the rioters daydream about it. 

This is all pie in the sky.  These people all conveniently overlook the fact that Hong Kong's location is key. 

:lol: Of course. It's 90% tongue in cheek: just set up a charter city somewhere in the coast with Hong Kong regulations and tax rates. Build it and they (and lots of Brits) will come.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 19, 2020, 05:42:31 PM
:lol: Of course. It's 90% tongue in cheek: just set up a charter city somewhere in the coast with Hong Kong regulations and tax rates. Build it and they (and lots of Brits) will come.

The biggest, and most difficult question about HK has been how to deal with Mainland China.  Building a new HK and HK independence are all escapism - I just do whatever I want to do, totally ignoring the Mainland angle. 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2020, 04:30:22 PM

This is all pie in the sky.  These people all conveniently overlook the fact that Hong Kong's location is key. 

This new Falklands Hong Kong would be the gateway to South America!

Hong Kong's success so far is a very specific product of geopolitics.  The only gateway to the huge Chinese market that has rule of law.  The tax rates and the regulations help, but are not the main attractions.  I don't think anyone can replicate Hong Kong anywhere in the world.  Just like nobody can repeat the success of Venice by copying their political and government systems.  It is not about the systems; it is about the geopolitics. 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2020, 10:22:32 PM
Hong Kong's success so far is a very specific product of geopolitics.  The only gateway to the huge Chinese market that has rule of law.  The tax rates and the regulations help, but are not the main attractions.  I don't think anyone can replicate Hong Kong anywhere in the world.  Just like nobody can repeat the success of Venice by copying their political and government systems.  It is not about the systems; it is about the geopolitics. 

Yes it was a joke. I mean you might build a city to put former Hong Kong residents in but it would not be exactly like Hong Kong.

It is extraordinary how much the sort of "elite" consensus on China is moving from the days of Cameron's "Golden century" or Osborne visiting Xinjiang to promote business opportunities - which was just 5 years ago.

Calls to consider banning Tik Tok, in part this is about security fears. But it's also about children's data and revelations that that company has been receiving complaints about individuals grooming children through TikTok, but then only banning those accounts for one week.

Labour have called for sanctions (including individual sanctions) over treatment of Uyghurs. The government haven't ruled it, out but said you need to build the case through evidence to justify individual sanctions.

The Chinese ambassador to the UK had a pretty dreadful interview on UK TV this weekend. He was shown that footage of Uyghurs blindfolded, heads shaved transferring to trains and responded, after a long pause, by talking about how Xinjiang is one of the most beautiful parts of China. He also said he couldn't guarantee no individual has been sterilised in a Chinese prison in Xinjiang. And, which I think indicates the Chinese view, compared the UK now to the Qianlong emperor.

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2020, 04:30:22 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 19, 2020, 01:03:15 PM
:lol: Someone semi-seriously suggested building a new Hong Kong in Lincolnshire. It's not the worst idea doing the rounds.

"Building a new HK" wasn't a new idea.  It was mentioned back in the 80s, during the negotiations between the UK and Mainland China over HK's future.  Some released UK government documents also talked about it.  Even now, some of the rioters daydream about it. 

This is all pie in the sky.  These people all conveniently overlook the fact that Hong Kong's location is key.

The UK could build some artificial islands off the Chinese coast. :shifty:
That would be some magnificent trolling.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 20, 2020, 12:28:39 PM
It is extraordinary how much the sort of "elite" consensus on China is moving from the days of Cameron's "Golden century" or Osborne visiting Xinjiang to promote business opportunities - which was just 5 years ago.

Not only there. German poll figures:

"Which political course should German take with regards to China?"
Dark Blue: combined "leaning towards rapproachement" and "significant rapproachement"
Red: combined "leaning towards distancing" and "significant distancing"
Light Blue: Continue as is.

(https://i.redd.it/v7nvm1pos8c51.jpg)

Quote from: Syt on July 22, 2020, 09:52:42 AM
Not only there. German poll figures:

"Which political course should German take with regards to China?"
Dark Blue: combined "leaning towards rapproachement" and "significant rapproachement"
Red: combined "leaning towards distancing" and "significant distancing"
Light Blue: Continue as is.

(https://i.redd.it/v7nvm1pos8c51.jpg)

Interesting - and promising. Berlin is still notably more reluctant to really do much against China (I understand it's very much in the Italian camp in EU debates), hopefully now public opinion is moving there will be a change in approach.

It feels like at least one thing we should be doing in democracies is international investigations into supply chains because I imagine all of us are consuming goods and products that have some element of the Uyghur camps in their supply chain.

Edit: It is fascinating how much this has moved and how quickly. I mean here there was never a broad base of support for deep engagement with China - it was very much a Cameron-Osborne project. And, as I say, I can't think of a government that's been more quickly discredited than the coalition.

Is there a similar chart for Russia? :hmm:

Quote from: Maladict on July 22, 2020, 09:43:54 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 19, 2020, 04:30:22 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 19, 2020, 01:03:15 PM
:lol: Someone semi-seriously suggested building a new Hong Kong in Lincolnshire. It's not the worst idea doing the rounds.

"Building a new HK" wasn't a new idea.  It was mentioned back in the 80s, during the negotiations between the UK and Mainland China over HK's future.  Some released UK government documents also talked about it.  Even now, some of the rioters daydream about it. 

This is all pie in the sky.  These people all conveniently overlook the fact that Hong Kong's location is key.

The UK could build some artificial islands off the Chinese coast. :shifty:
That would be some magnificent trolling.

The Diamond Age :wub:

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 22, 2020, 03:58:52 PM
It feels like at least one thing we should be doing in democracies is international investigations into supply chains because I imagine all of us are consuming goods and products that have some element of the Uyghur camps in their supply chain.

Eg: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2020/jul/23/virtually-entire-fashion-industry-complicit-in-uighur-forced-labour-say-rights-groups-china

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 20, 2020, 12:28:39 PM
It is extraordinary how much the sort of "elite" consensus on China is moving from the days of Cameron's "Golden century" or Osborne visiting Xinjiang to promote business opportunities - which was just 5 years ago.

Calls to consider banning Tik Tok, in part this is about security fears. But it's also about children's data and revelations that that company has been receiving complaints about individuals grooming children through TikTok, but then only banning those accounts for one week.

Labour have called for sanctions (including individual sanctions) over treatment of Uyghurs. The government haven't ruled it, out but said you need to build the case through evidence to justify individual sanctions.

The Chinese ambassador to the UK had a pretty dreadful interview on UK TV this weekend. He was shown that footage of Uyghurs blindfolded, heads shaved transferring to trains and responded, after a long pause, by talking about how Xinjiang is one of the most beautiful parts of China. He also said he couldn't guarantee no individual has been sterilised in a Chinese prison in Xinjiang. And, which I think indicates the Chinese view, compared the UK now to the Qianlong emperor.

I am very happy about this turn of events as well but what I think happening is not a principled stand (although I am sure being in the right makes it easier for our policy makers), but rather the US asserting itself over UK policy to proactively prevent China from doing so in the future.

I mean I query what we mean by the US asserting itself over UK policy. I mean how would that be different from the norm - from the Blair-Bush years, for example?

I think there's definitely a part of that around Huawei especially - but I would note that the May government had reviewed and approved Huawei multiple times and the Johnson government did so in January. I also think there has been a general mood-shift in Western countries - the French Foreign Minister made a fairly strong statement yesterday. I don't think Britain is entirely unique in the shift of attitudes on China, but I think it's somewhat ahead of the curve in measures it's taking.

I think it's the combination of annoyance at covid-19 and the perception that China wasn't as open as it should have been, plus the supply chain issues that exposed. Then there's Hong Kong and increasing information/footage coming out of Xinjiang. And, on a personal level, Dominic Raab's dad came to Britain on the kindertransport and I imagine some of the footage from Xinjiang would have really hit home with him.

The other point is the UK did threaten to veto inviting Putin to the G7, which Trump wanted to do. There was no need to do that publicly we could have let another country make that statement (unless no-one else wanted to) - and I get that wasn't an "action" but we know Trump's attitudes to people who publicly disagree with him even if they don't do anything about it (see, for example, multiple Republican Senators :P). To be honest I think part of it is we're just seeing a foreign policy again which we haven't really had since 2010 (or maybe since Bush left office). On 5G, on Hong Kong, on human rights, on collaborating with other democracies the UK is engaging again after a fairly insular decade.

The other point I'd like to see us move aggressively on is the stuff that's been exposed in the Russia report - the reputation laundering that happens in the UK. I hope we start to see more aggressive enforcement around money laundering, KYC stuff etc, because that is part of foreign policy now. We know, or we should know, that Russian oligarchs weren't just putting their money in London because it's a nice place to live. And what we saw with Russia I think we're increasingly seeing with the rich and connected from other countries. I won't hold my breath on this one (though would note that the Democrats apparently want stricter AML laws in any trade deal which would be a good thing).

One particularly interesting point about it I find is that the left has always been highly critical of China.
Since Trump the hard right has also found China bashing an easy way to build support.
Liberals have traditionally been more middling and hoping by engaging with China they will somehow realise the error of their ways.
Johnson has found himself in quite a difficult place; inheriting the previously liberal Tory policy towards China, being on a path of brexit which had one of its main arguments engaging more with China...yet trying to build his power base on hard right populist lines, right at a time when the liberal approach is becoming less viable.

Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2020, 05:05:43 AM
One particularly interesting point about it I find is that the left has always been highly critical of China.

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/028/596/dsmGaKWMeHXe9QuJtq_ys30PNfTGnMsRuHuo_MUzGCg.jpg)

Quote from: Tamas on July 23, 2020, 05:13:38 AM

Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2020, 05:05:43 AM
One particularly interesting point about it I find is that the left has always been highly critical of China.

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/028/596/dsmGaKWMeHXe9QuJtq_ys30PNfTzGCg.jpg)no

(https://www.freetibet.org/files/images/1957678_10152901584519068_1372670212_o.jpg)

As in US politics, that part of the left definitely exists...but usually as the left moves more to the center (and on well into the right), the humanitarian focus become more of an empty lip-service that also goes hand-in-hand with eagerly hoping to cash in on Chinese money/economic benefits (both personal and political).

Quote from: Tamas on July 23, 2020, 05:13:38 AM

Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2020, 05:05:43 AM
One particularly interesting point about it I find is that the left has always been highly critical of China.

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/028/596/dsmGaKWMeHXe9QuJtq_ys30PNfTGnMsRuHuo_MUzGCg.jpg)

Yeah - I mean it's very much variable depending on your stream of the left.

Bits of the left have a good record on China, the bit of the left that has a sort of hegemonic/imperialist vision of the world (i.e. the US is an imperial, hegemonic power, any power operating against the US is an anti-imperialist power, as an anti-imperialist I should support or not oppose those powers) has a less good record. So I like Diane Abbott a lot, but I disagree with her that Chairman Mao did more good than harm. Similarly Seumas Milne had written several times about the positives of China as a model challenging the US. I think both of those examples reflect that anti-imperialist/hegemonic interpretation of the world. It's the same as struggling to oppose Russia or Assad on big issues because they are anti-imperialist powers. And there's always a sop: you might criticise Russia over its record on gay rights, but struggle with criticising them for killing people with chemical and nuclear agents in the UK or for backing Assad.

I actually think the most impressive foreign policy in the last few years has been the SNP. This needs to be qualified that it is only since Sturgeon took over (Alex Salmond after all had his own show on Russia Today - and that crank wing still exists), but in the last 5 years I think they've been really good on Russia, on China, on various human rights issues. Stewart McDonald, their defence spokesman, in particular is great.

Sometimes I think it is true that there are elements on the far end of both the left, and the right, that will always be against whomever is in power or "on top"...even if that means sympathy with the Putins/Assads/ISISs of the world.  And also seem to transform into the worst elements, or the always obvious worst elements of those sides take the lead...in the cases they actually do stumble into taking power.  Then they go back to opposing the "new" power as a betrayal of the old resistance.   

Quote from: Tamas on July 23, 2020, 05:13:38 AM

Quote from: Tyr on July 23, 2020, 05:05:43 AM
One particularly interesting point about it I find is that the left has always been highly critical of China.

(https://i.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/mobile/000/028/596/dsmGaKWMeHXe9QuJtq_ys30PNfTGnMsRuHuo_MUzGCg.jpg)

don't worry: they left was also very critical of the USSR...

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/28/benny-tai-university-of-hong-kong-fired

Lots in this story to <_< to.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 28, 2020, 03:29:25 PM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/28/benny-tai-university-of-hong-kong-fired

Lots in this story to <_< to.

He first suggested, championed, organised, participated, and led an illegal activity back in 2014.  He admitted that it was illegal, turned himself in, was charged (which was part of his plan), convicted, jailed, and released. 

Now, I haven't read the University of Hong Kong rule book, but I am quite certain that there must be a rule to the effect of, "thou shall obey the law". 

So he is fired for blatantly breaking the law and the rules of his university.  I don't know why he is complaining. 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 28, 2020, 08:24:37 PM
Now, I haven't read the University of Hong Kong rule book, but I am quite certain that there must be a rule to the effect of, "thou shall obey the law". 

I'll take that bet.

Benny Tai has appealed. 

In the British tradition, the highest authority of a university is the Chancellor.  That is usually an esteemed member of the Royal Family.  But since Hong Kong was a mere colony, we were not worthy of having royalty to serve as Chancellors of our universities.  That role was filled by the Queen's representative in Hong Kong, i.e. the Governor of Hong Kong.

After the handover, that role was taken up by the Chief Executive. 

So he will appeal to the Chancellor of the university, i.e. the Chief Executive, i.e. the person who most want to have him fired on this planet  :lol:  He knows his appeal won't succeed.  He just wants to drag the Chief Executive into this. 

The Chief Executive is an incompetent idiot who always manages to make the situation worse so I am sure she will manage to fuck it up somehow. He probably just wanted to give her the opportunity.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 19, 2020, 01:03:15 PM
:lol: Someone semi-seriously suggested building a new Hong Kong in Lincolnshire. It's not the worst idea doing the rounds.

Ok new plan. the UK builds one of those artificial islands that China is building but about ten miles away from Hong Kong and put the new Hong Kong there.

Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2020, 12:49:43 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 19, 2020, 01:03:15 PM
:lol: Someone semi-seriously suggested building a new Hong Kong in Lincolnshire. It's not the worst idea doing the rounds.

Ok new plan. the UK builds one of those artificial islands that China is building but about ten miles away from Hong Kong and put the new Hong Kong there.

and for good measure: give the island the shape of a trololol face. And make it visible from orbit :)

QuoteHong Kong property tycoon pitches new city idea to Ireland
Ivan Ko hopes to find site between Dublin and Belfast to host 50,000 fellow Hongkongers

A Hong Kong property tycoon wants to build a city in Ireland to host 50,000 emigrants from the semi-autonomous city.

Ivan Ko, the founder of the Victoria Harbour Group (VHG), an international charter city investment company, hopes to find a 50 sq km site between Dublin and Belfast to create a new city, named Nextpolis, from scratch.

Ko has pitched the plan, which would include schools that teach in Cantonese, to Irish officials, arguing it would fit the government's stated desire to develop regions outside the capital.

Of six locations under consideration the favourite is a site between Drogheda and Dundalk, near the border with Northern Ireland and within striking distance of Dublin airport.

"We like Ireland," Ko told the Guardian on Tuesday. "Corporate taxes are very low. You have a very strong manufacturing and biomedical companies. Major tech giants have European headquarters there. Overall we think Ireland is very good."

A department of foreign affairs spokesperson in Dublin confirmed there had been talks with Ko but appeared to pour cold water on the idea. "Following an initial approach in December 2019, the department had limited contact with the individuals involved to provide helpful and realistic guidance about Ireland. Since providing this guidance there has been no further action taken by the department in this matter," they said.

Ko's original pitch – reported by the Times last weekend – envisaged an autonomous city for 500,000 Hongkongers over 500 sq km.

He drastically scaled that down after feedback from Ireland and other potential hosts, he told the Guardian. "We found out that replicating the Hong Kong model was not suitable, as if we were imposing something, and that Hong Kong people would be seen as segregated from the rest of the population. So we changed to another model."

The new version will follow the host's political system, said Ko. "We don't have a separate border or our own country – just a new city to let Hong Kong people live together and at the same time integrate with local businesses so we can maximise the benefits to both sides."

Ko said he hoped to lead a delegation to Ireland later this year, if pandemic restrictions ease, to meet local people and inspect potential sites.

Attractions included Ireland's low population density and Brexit creating opportunities for its financial services sector, Ko said. He added he was considering additional countries, which he declined to name.

Paddy Malone, a spokesperson for Dundalk's chamber of commerce, said the M1 corridor region between Dublin and Belfast could host such a city. "We would be ideally located to facilitate this in that we have the infrastructure in place to cope with an expansion."

Settlers from Hong Kong would enjoy fast broadband, access to three airports and seven universities and be able to commute from Northern Ireland should they prefer to live in the UK, he said. "If it's going to be accommodated in Ireland we are the prime location."

China's recent imposition of national security laws in the region has prompted many Hongkongers to consider leaving. The British government has promised to provide assistance and relocation.

In a Charter Cities Institute podcast Ko compared any such migration to those who sailed on the Mayflower to America in 1620. "We are in pursuit of freedom and democracy, which is a little bit similar to the pilgrims and the puritans who left Europe in pursuit of religious freedom."

Yes, let's colonize Ireland. That has a rich history of success.

Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2020, 02:31:40 PM
Yes, let's colonize Ireland. That has a rich history of success.

I mean it takes them 400 years to finally kick you out. not a bad investment.

Let's colonise the Isle of Man - as someone with Manx heritage who's visited the Isle of Man to visit family - paving it over into a dense, libertarian's dream, neon, urban hellscape would be a considerably improvement :)

Quote from: HVC on July 29, 2020, 02:34:58 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2020, 02:31:40 PM
Yes, let's colonize Ireland. That has a rich history of success.

I mean it takes them 400 years to finally kick you out. not a bad investment.

800 :contract: :ultra:

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2020, 02:35:30 PM
800 :contract: :ultra:

Well to be fair...the old English eventually became Irish. The later ones not so much.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2020, 02:35:19 PM
Let's colonise the Isle of Man - as someone with Manx heritage who's visited the Isle of Man to visit family - paving it over into a dense, libertarian's dream, neon, urban hellscape would be a considerably improvement :)

Not a big fan of its current situation?  :lol:

"Nextpolis"  :yuk:

Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2020, 02:40:13 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2020, 02:35:30 PM
800 :contract: :ultra:

Well to be fair...the old English eventually became Irish. The later ones not so much.

Yeah, I only counted the tudor invasion :D

Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2020, 12:49:43 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 19, 2020, 01:03:15 PM
:lol: Someone semi-seriously suggested building a new Hong Kong in Lincolnshire. It's not the worst idea doing the rounds.

Ok new plan. the UK builds one of those artificial islands that China is building but about ten miles away from Hong Kong and put the new Hong Kong there.

I would say build it in/off Taiwan and then give Tiawan full diplomatic recognition.  :sleep:

Quote from: HVC on July 29, 2020, 02:59:38 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2020, 02:40:13 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2020, 02:35:30 PM
800 :contract: :ultra:

Well to be fair...the old English eventually became Irish. The later ones not so much.

Yeah, I only counted the tudor invasion :D

:lol: Yeah - I can assure you that's not how it's counted in Ireland :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2020, 03:52:15 PM
:lol: Yeah - I can assure you that's not how it's counted in Ireland :P

I can imagine. They hadn't even managed to kick the last invaders out when the Normans came pouring in.

But they were invited. Just saying.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2020, 03:52:15 PM

Quote from: HVC on July 29, 2020, 02:59:38 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2020, 02:40:13 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2020, 02:35:30 PM
800 :contract: :ultra:

Well to be fair...the old English eventually became Irish. The later ones not so much.

Yeah, I only counted the tudor invasion :D

:lol: Yeah - I can assure you that's not how it's counted in Ireland :P

They are quite hypocritical in this tbh. No problem counting the Norman invasions as the evil English invading but equally no issue counting the Hiberno Normans as Irish in later times. An honour they never give the Anglo Irish.... Unless they're major cultural figures of course then they're given an exception.

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2020, 03:52:15 PM

Quote from: HVC on July 29, 2020, 02:59:38 PM

Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2020, 02:40:13 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 29, 2020, 02:35:30 PM
800 :contract: :ultra:

Well to be fair...the old English eventually became Irish. The later ones not so much.

Yeah, I only counted the tudor invasion :D

:lol: Yeah - I can assure you that's not how it's counted in Ireland :P

They're biased and so don't count :P

Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2020, 12:49:43 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 19, 2020, 01:03:15 PM
:lol: Someone semi-seriously suggested building a new Hong Kong in Lincolnshire. It's not the worst idea doing the rounds.

Ok new plan. the UK builds one of those artificial islands that China is building but about ten miles away from Hong Kong and put the new Hong Kong there.

1. Artificial islands are extremely expensive, especially if you build it in deep waters.  Hong Kong is small but not that small.  Building a thousand square mile artificial island will be a gigantic financial hole.

2. 10 miles away from HK is probably still within either the territorial waters or exclusive economic zone or whatever from China.  They will not agree.

3. Even if you build it just outside the territorial waters of Mainland China (which BTW will be very far out), they'll go ballistic and react by blockading the new island.  That place will have no future.  Hong Kong exists as a trading gateway with China.  If it can't trade with China, it has no business existing. 

Quote from: The Larch on July 29, 2020, 02:20:24 PM

QuoteHong Kong property tycoon pitches new city idea to Ireland
Ivan Ko hopes to find site between Dublin and Belfast to host 50,000 fellow Hongkongers

A Hong Kong property tycoon wants to build a city in Ireland to host 50,000 emigrants from the semi-autonomous city.

Ivan Ko, the founder of the Victoria Harbour Group (VHG), an international charter city investment company, hopes to find a 50 sq km site between Dublin and Belfast to create a new city, named Nextpolis, from scratch.

Ko has pitched the plan, which would include schools that teach in Cantonese, to Irish officials, arguing it would fit the government's stated desire to develop regions outside the capital.

Of six locations under consideration the favourite is a site between Drogheda and Dundalk, near the border with Northern Ireland and within striking distance of Dublin airport.

"We like Ireland," Ko told the Guardian on Tuesday. "Corporate taxes are very low. You have a very strong manufacturing and biomedical companies. Major tech giants have European headquarters there. Overall we think Ireland is very good."

A department of foreign affairs spokesperson in Dublin confirmed there had been talks with Ko but appeared to pour cold water on the idea. "Following an initial approach in December 2019, the department had limited contact with the individuals involved to provide helpful and realistic guidance about Ireland. Since providing this guidance there has been no further action taken by the department in this matter," they said.

Ko's original pitch – reported by the Times last weekend – envisaged an autonomous city for 500,000 Hongkongers over 500 sq km.

He drastically scaled that down after feedback from Ireland and other potential hosts, he told the Guardian. "We found out that replicating the Hong Kong model was not suitable, as if we were imposing something, and that Hong Kong people would be seen as segregated from the rest of the population. So we changed to another model."

The new version will follow the host's political system, said Ko. "We don't have a separate border or our own country – just a new city to let Hong Kong people live together and at the same time integrate with local businesses so we can maximise the benefits to both sides."

Ko said he hoped to lead a delegation to Ireland later this year, if pandemic restrictions ease, to meet local people and inspect potential sites.

Attractions included Ireland's low population density and Brexit creating opportunities for its financial services sector, Ko said. He added he was considering additional countries, which he declined to name.

Paddy Malone, a spokesperson for Dundalk's chamber of commerce, said the M1 corridor region between Dublin and Belfast could host such a city. "We would be ideally located to facilitate this in that we have the infrastructure in place to cope with an expansion."

Settlers from Hong Kong would enjoy fast broadband, access to three airports and seven universities and be able to commute from Northern Ireland should they prefer to live in the UK, he said. "If it's going to be accommodated in Ireland we are the prime location."

China's recent imposition of national security laws in the region has prompted many Hongkongers to consider leaving. The British government has promised to provide assistance and relocation.

In a Charter Cities Institute podcast Ko compared any such migration to those who sailed on the Mayflower to America in 1620. "We are in pursuit of freedom and democracy, which is a little bit similar to the pilgrims and the puritans who left Europe in pursuit of religious freedom."

The number of property tycoons in Hong Kong can be counted with two hands.  I have never heard of this Ivan Ko guy.  Real tycoons are members of Forbe's billionaire lists, and you can easily google them.  I think this Ivan Ko is more of a con man than a property tycoon. 

Quote from: Tonitrus on July 29, 2020, 03:33:07 PM

I would say build it in/off Taiwan and then give Tiawan full diplomatic recognition.  :sleep:

A couple hundred Hong Kong rioters have gone over to Taiwan, and probably a few thousand (normal) HKers have moved to Taiwan.  There is actually some debate within Taiwan on what to do with HKers.  They have progressively tightened the criteria for HKers to move there.  They have problems that everybody else have, like low wages, housing shortages, etc.  A large number of HKers moving there causes problems for them too. 

And there is also the issue of Taiwan's internal politics.  The main axis of the political divide there is whether they want closer relationships with the Mainland, or a more distant one.  There is a substantial pro-China faction there, although they are undoubtedly the minority at the moment.  Taking HK rioters isn't a proposition they agree with. 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 29, 2020, 05:57:54 PM


The number of property tycoons in Hong Kong can be counted with two hands.  I have never heard of this Ivan Ko guy.  Real tycoons are members of Forbe's billionaire lists, and you can easily google them.  I think this Ivan Ko is more of a con man than a property tycoon.

What's the difference?

The KMT wants to be subservient to the CCP? Sure it does Mono, sure it does.

Quote from: Valmy on July 29, 2020, 10:05:00 PM
The KMT wants to be subservient to the CCP? Sure it does Mono, sure it does.

I thought the 'ol KMT was the party that is snuggling up to the ChiComs?

I don't see how what's happening to HK will bolster the pro-Beijing side in Taiwanese politics. It's a clear-cut cautionary tale.

In any case the pro-Beijing parties have been on a downward slide for a while now. The CCP's attitude is probably the final nail in their coffin.

It isn't just about politics.  Taiwan's economy has not been doing well for the past decade or two.  The iphone factories are Taiwanese owned, but they are on the Mainland, employing Mainland workers.  Closer economic relations with the Mainland promise greater economic benefits for Taiwan.   

So China is screwing them over on jobs just like we had been. :(

Quote from: Tonitrus on July 30, 2020, 03:54:59 AM
So China is screwing them over on jobs just like we had been. :(

Everybody needs to be globally competitive  :bowler: 

Quote from: Monoriu on July 30, 2020, 02:24:10 AM
It isn't just about politics.  Taiwan's economy has not been doing well for the past decade or two.  The iphone factories are Taiwanese owned, but they are on the Mainland, employing Mainland workers.  Closer economic relations with the Mainland promise greater economic benefits for Taiwan.   

Although on that example Apple are currently looking to diversify their supply chain to avoid being too reliant on China and I think are manufacturing some phones in India now.

But also let's not forget your GDP only view of politics is fairly unusual :P

Quote from: Sheilbh on July 30, 2020, 04:19:05 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on July 30, 2020, 02:24:10 AM
It isn't just about politics.  Taiwan's economy has not been doing well for the past decade or two.  The iphone factories are Taiwanese owned, but they are on the Mainland, employing Mainland workers.  Closer economic relations with the Mainland promise greater economic benefits for Taiwan.   

Although on that example Apple are currently looking to diversify their supply chain to avoid being too reliant on China and I think are manufacturing some phones in India now.

But also let's not forget your GDP only view of politics is fairly unusual :P

Food comes first  :P

There is increasing talk among the pro-establishment faction in Hong Kong that the National People's Congress Standing Committee will interpret the Basic Law due to the UK's offer of citizenship to BNO holders.  What will happen is that any HKer who goes through with this will be stripped of HK citizenship, voting rights, welfare (the main thing being right to public housing, which in HK is a gigantic deal), etc.  These people will no longer be able to travel to the Mainland using existing documents (HK and Macau residents have a special permit for travelling to and from the Mainland).  They will be treated as foreigners, meaning they could potentially be barred from entering the Mainland. 

There are 1.4bn or so people in China; why worry if 0.25m or so take up the UK offer? The CCP is easily rattled it seems, but why?

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 01, 2020, 02:07:25 AM
There are 1.4bn or so people in China; why worry if 0.25m or so take up the UK offer? The CCP is easily rattled it seems, but why?

Humanitarian considerations speaking against 0.25m people moving to a Brexit country led by a PM who has a single continuous blond moment?

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 01, 2020, 02:07:25 AM
There are 1.4bn or so people in China; why worry if 0.25m or so take up the UK offer? The CCP is easily rattled it seems, but why?

Not sure.  My personal view is that, for the sake of long-term governance of Hong Kong, it is best for the unhappy people to leave.  Replace them with Mainlanders who will be very happy to be able to access Google in HK. 

The most obvious answer is brain drain.  The people who leave tend to be middle class, white collar, professional types.  They'll take their expertise, and capital with them. 

Actually the colonial British Administration once held similar views.  About a hundred years ago, many Chinese workers wanted to leave Hong Kong for better wages on the Mainland.  The colonial government wanted to stop them from leaving, so they fired live rounds into the migrants. 

Another theory I think is that, if the rioters have an escape route to the UK, then they'll be emboldened to continue the fuss.  So Beijing feels that they have to do something to make this escape route less appealing.  If they have no choice but to stay in HK, they'll have no choice but to continue to work and stay quiet. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/31/china-hong-kong-security-law-american-citizen-exiles

QuoteChina uses Hong Kong security law against US and UK-based activists

Hong Kong police have issued arrest warrants for six pro-democracy activists living in exile, the first time the city's authorities have used a sweeping new law to target campaigners living outside Hong Kong.

They include Samuel Chu, an American citizen who lives in the US, Nathan Law, a prominent campaigner who recently relocated to the UK after fleeing Hong Kong, and Simon Cheng, a former British consular staffer who was granted asylum in the UK after alleging he was tortured in China.

Chinese state media reported that the six men were wanted for "incitement to secession and collusion with foreign forces".

The move comes a month after China introduced a controversial national security law in Hong Kong. China said the legislation targets the crimes of "secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces" and carries penalties as severe as life in prison.

Critics warned that it would be used to target legitimate opposition, and highlighted the unusual decision to make the law applicable to both Hong Kong residents and non-residents. That apparently gives China jurisdiction beyond its own borders.

Chu, who runs the Hong Kong Democracy Council, a Washington DC-based advocacy organization dedicated to furthering Hong Kong's freedom and democracy, is the first person targeted under this aspect of the law.

He said China was sending a clear message to other activists by ordering his arrest.

"I would really emphasize how outrageous this really is," Chu told the Guardian. "I am the first non-Chinese citizen that essentially is being targeted. I think they do intend to try to make this an example."

Several countries have since suspended their extradition treaties with Hong Kong, including the UK, Australia and Germany, as a possible safeguard against attempts to use the national security laws to round up activists abroad. The US ordered an end to Hong Kong's special economic status earlier in July.

Chu, who has lived in the US as an American citizen since 1996, said the charges amounted to China "targeting a US citizen for lobbying my own government".

"We always knew that when the national security law went into effect there was a very troubling and illogical, irrational idea that they were claiming jurisdiction over anyone who is not even a Hong Kong resident, who is anywhere in the world, doing anything that they deemed threatening," he said.

The other activists charged wereRay Wong, Wayne Chan and Honcques Laus.

Wong, who is currently in the UK, told Reuters the charges showed that the Chinese government was afraid of the advocacy work of Hong Kong activists internationally.

"I think they want to cut off our connection with people in Hong Kong ... it will make people fear that they may violate the national security law by contacting us," Wong said.

Quote from: garbon on August 01, 2020, 03:10:04 AM
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/31/china-hong-kong-security-law-american-citizen-exiles

QuoteChina uses Hong Kong security law against US and UK-based activists

Hong Kong police have issued arrest warrants for six pro-democracy activists living in exile, the first time the city's authorities have used a sweeping new law to target campaigners living outside Hong Kong.

They include Samuel Chu, an American citizen who lives in the US, Nathan Law, a prominent campaigner who recently relocated to the UK after fleeing Hong Kong, and Simon Cheng, a former British consular staffer who was granted asylum in the UK after alleging he was tortured in China.

Chinese state media reported that the six men were wanted for "incitement to secession and collusion with foreign forces".

The move comes a month after China introduced a controversial national security law in Hong Kong. China said the legislation targets the crimes of "secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces" and carries penalties as severe as life in prison.

Critics warned that it would be used to target legitimate opposition, and highlighted the unusual decision to make the law applicable to both Hong Kong residents and non-residents. That apparently gives China jurisdiction beyond its own borders.

Chu, who runs the Hong Kong Democracy Council, a Washington DC-based advocacy organization dedicated to furthering Hong Kong's freedom and democracy, is the first person targeted under this aspect of the law.

He said China was sending a clear message to other activists by ordering his arrest.

"I would really emphasize how outrageous this really is," Chu told the Guardian. "I am the first non-Chinese citizen that essentially is being targeted. I think they do intend to try to make this an example."

Several countries have since suspended their extradition treaties with Hong Kong, including the UK, Australia and Germany, as a possible safeguard against attempts to use the national security laws to round up activists abroad. The US ordered an end to Hong Kong's special economic status earlier in July.

Chu, who has lived in the US as an American citizen since 1996, said the charges amounted to China "targeting a US citizen for lobbying my own government".

"We always knew that when the national security law went into effect there was a very troubling and illogical, irrational idea that they were claiming jurisdiction over anyone who is not even a Hong Kong resident, who is anywhere in the world, doing anything that they deemed threatening," he said.

The other activists charged wereRay Wong, Wayne Chan and Honcques Laus.

Wong, who is currently in the UK, told Reuters the charges showed that the Chinese government was afraid of the advocacy work of Hong Kong activists internationally.

"I think they want to cut off our connection with people in Hong Kong ... it will make people fear that they may violate the national security law by contacting us," Wong said.

Yeah, no surprise that the Chinese Occupation Government is terrified that people will tell the truth and it will get back to Occupied China.  After all, that's always the fear of occupiers; that the people will recognize that the occupiers are far less powerful than the people.

Quote from: Monoriu on August 01, 2020, 02:27:49 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 01, 2020, 02:07:25 AM
There are 1.4bn or so people in China; why worry if 0.25m or so take up the UK offer? The CCP is easily rattled it seems, but why?

Not sure.  My personal view is that, for the sake of long-term governance of Hong Kong, it is best for the unhappy people to leave.  Replace them with Mainlanders who will be very happy to be able to access Google in HK.

They won't be able to access Google in HK. Once you're one country, one system, that's it. You're just another random overcrowded Chinese city. If you're removing library books, why on earth would you have uncensored internet access?

Quote from: Zoupa on August 02, 2020, 01:05:24 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on August 01, 2020, 02:27:49 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on August 01, 2020, 02:07:25 AM
There are 1.4bn or so people in China; why worry if 0.25m or so take up the UK offer? The CCP is easily rattled it seems, but why?

Not sure.  My personal view is that, for the sake of long-term governance of Hong Kong, it is best for the unhappy people to leave.  Replace them with Mainlanders who will be very happy to be able to access Google in HK.

They won't be able to access Google in HK. Once you're one country, one system, that's it. You're just another random overcrowded Chinese city. If you're removing library books, why on earth would you have uncensored internet access?

Because Goldman Sachs care about Google but not library books :contract:

Is Goldman Sachs running Honk Kong now? I thought the Chinese Communist Party was?

Quote from: Zoupa on August 02, 2020, 03:38:34 AM
Is Goldman Sachs running Honk Kong now? I thought the Chinese Communist Party was?

The foreign investment banks don't run Hong Kong, but they are important in keeping Hong Kong running.  Beijing has no incentive to make the HK middle class happy, but it wants to keep the investment bankers.  The internet is important to them, so it won't be disturbed. 

Quote from: Monoriu on August 02, 2020, 04:40:54 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on August 02, 2020, 03:38:34 AM
Is Goldman Sachs running Honk Kong now? I thought the Chinese Communist Party was?

The foreign investment banks don't run Hong Kong, but they are important in keeping Hong Kong running.  Beijing has no incentive to make the HK middle class happy, but it wants to keep the investment bankers.  The internet is important to them, so it won't be disturbed.

I for one won't miss you when you're cut off in the near future.

Quote from: Hamilcar on August 02, 2020, 05:08:14 AM


I for one won't miss you when you're cut off in the near future.

Just so you know, every time I go to the Mainland, I can access languish.  Can't get rid of me so easily  :P

So we have some stats on this - 2020 has seen more UK passports issued to Hong Kongers since 1997 (about 250,000 this year), 10 years ago fewer than 10,000 were being issued a year. As the headline put it, a passport's being issued every five minutes.

It also seems to have come in a couple of waves. There was a surge of approvals following the initial unrest, it then fell back over the spring but since the National Security Law was passed it's increased every month and October (which is when the stats go up to) was the busiest month with 60,000 passports issued. There's also been a reported 80% increase in queries from Hong Kong for property.

UK government estimates for how many will actually come to the UK range between about 250-350,000. Having said that I'd note that the "high" estimate for passport applications this year was under 200,000 so....?

Getting a passport is the easy part.  You lose the fee and some time, that's it.  Actually moving is an entirely different matter. 

A proxy statistic we look at is the "good citizen card" - actually a record of no criminal conviction issued by the police.  There are mainly two reasons why someone needs it - either it is a job requirement, e.g. you want to be a security guard in HK, or you want to move to the UK, Canada etc.  Most foreign governments demand it before it will accept a HKer.  This statistic is somewhat stable, about 22k from January to September in both 2019 and 2020.  My gut feeling is half of those are normal security guard applications, and the other half are those who want to move.  So full year figures are probably 28k-30k.  Half of those want to move, that's 14k to 15k people who want to move every year.

We take in about 55k Mainland immigrants every year, so the population should still be increasing.  Our natural population growth rate is deep in the negative though. 

Certainly the National Security Law is one consideration for those who want to move, but it isn't the only factor.  Property prices is a crucial factor.  Prices in HK are so high that probably only those who are in the top 5% income brackets can afford a flat now.   It also means those who already own a flat can easily sell it and retire in somewhere cheap, like Manchester. 

Also getting a passport is all you can do right now. The new visa and requirements for it haven't been launched - that starts on 31 January 2021.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 04, 2020, 04:33:05 PM
Also getting a passport is all you can do right now. The new visa and requirements for it haven't been launched - that starts on 31 January 2021.

I personally know a civil servant who quit in August and moved to the UK with her entire family.  Caused me a lot of trouble.  People move to the UK all the time, even without this latest BNO visa scheme. 

The National People's Congress Standing Committee will hold an emergency session in these few days.  The latest rumour is that they will make a decision that forbids any HKer who gets a BN(O) passport from holding "public office".  Public office unfortunately is not very clearly defined under HK law.  Different ordinances have different definitions.  But the broadest interpretation could mean "all civil servants and employees of subsidised bodies".  "Subsidised bodies" could mean most schools, hospitals, social welfare organisations, orchestras, universities, etc.  If true, that will mean that people who get their BN(O) passports under the latest UK scheme won't be able to get, I don't know, half the jobs in HK.  Say a medical doctor who gets the passport this way won't be able to practise in any hospital. 

Pro-Beijing groups are also proposing all sorts of consequences like losing the right to vote, no welfare, or even losing the right to enter Hong Kong at all. 

Don't you have one?

Mono has a full one iirc; though the question may still apply.

Quote from: Tyr on January 14, 2021, 02:59:50 AM
Don't you have one?

Mine is the same as yours. 

From the way mono phrased it, it doesn't seem to be retroactive.

Quote from: Maladict on January 14, 2021, 05:43:34 AM
From the way mono phrased it, it doesn't seem to be retroactive.

A most reliable narrator.

Quote from: garbon on January 14, 2021, 06:18:01 AM

Quote from: Maladict on January 14, 2021, 05:43:34 AM
From the way mono phrased it, it doesn't seem to be retroactive.

A most reliable narrator.

Well yes, caveat narrator.

Meanwhile:

QuoteChina's treatment of Uighurs amounts to torture, says Dominic Raab
Foreign secretary sets out measures to ensure UK companies cannot profit from forced labour in Xinjiang
Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor
Tue 12 Jan 2021 16.33 GMT
First published on Tue 12 Jan 2021 16.30 GMT

China's treatment of the Uighur people amounts to torture, the British foreign secretary, Dominic Raab, has said as he set out measures designed to ensure no companies allow the use of forced labour from Xinjiang province in their supply chain. Deterrent fines will be imposed on firms that do not show due diligence in cleaning up their supply chains, he said.

The aim, he told MPs, was to "ensure no company that profits from forced labour in Xinjiang can do business in the UK, that no UK business is involved in their supply chains".

He also proposed a review of export controls to Xinjiang province – the region in which tens of thousands of Uighur Muslims have been detained; new guidance to companies operating in the province; and a commitment that the Modern Slavery Act will be extended to the public sector.

Raab also said the government was reviewing the role of China's Confucius Institutes operating in British academic institutions.

But the foreign secretary held back from imposing sanctions against any individual Chinese officials responsible for human rights abuses, saying "he will keep that in reserve".

The tightening up of the Modern Slavery Act, including company-reporting requirements, largely follows the recommendations of a government-commissioned report, overseen by the MP Frank Field, and published in May 2019 that found many companies treated the act as a box-ticking exercise. Critics said the review merely imposes fines if companies with an annual turnover of more than £36m do not produce an annual report.

His package is likely to be seen as the bare minimum by critics of Chinese human rights, and will do little to stem a potential rebellion by those critics demanding that the government endorse amendments passed in the Lords that make human rights a central consideration in future trade deals.

Labour's Lisa Nandy, the shadow foreign secretary, said the robustness of Raab's words had not been matched by his actions, adding there was little that was new and "amounted to tinkering around the edges". Far from going further than any other country, she said France had already gone further than the UK.

But the scale of Raab's criticisms of China were striking, accusing the country of "extensive and invasive surveillance targeting minorities, systematic restrictions on Uighur culture, education, and the practice of Islam, and the widespread use of forced labour". Satellite imagery showed the scale of the internment camps, the presence of factories inside them, and the destruction of mosques, he said.

Describing the position as harrowing, he added: "The nature and conditions of detention violate basic standards of human rights and, at their worst, amount to torture. Internment camps, arbitrary detention, political re-education, forced labour, torture, forced sterilisation.
All on an industrial scale. It is truly horrific. Barbarism we all hoped was lost to another era."

He said he had discussed with the UN secretary general, António Guterres, UK proposals for a UN human rights commissioner to be allowed to go to the province to examine the allegations of forced labour. He said without such a visit it is difficult to determine if "the tenable plausible and credible reports of forced labour" were true, he said. China has rejected the proposal, prompting Raab to claim "China cannot simply refuse all access to those trusted third party bodies who could verify the facts, and at the same time maintain a position of credible denial".

In the Commons, Raab came under the most pressure over whether he will give a role to UK Judges to make a pre-determination on whether genocide is being committed in Xinjiang, and if so, refuse to negotiate any free-trade agreement with China, a measure that has already been inserted into the trade bill in the Lords.

Critics say Raab's current position leads to a cul de sac as the international courts are not able to determine if genocide is occurring due to China's refusal to refer the issue to the international court of justice.

Luke de Pulford, of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China, said: "The measures to tighten the Modern Slavery Act do not stop companies not telling the truth about slavery in their supply chains. Companies like HikVision and Huawei have been accused of helping Uighur oppression, but this issue is not addressed in their modern slavery statements, and these statements do nothing to address that."

The China Research Group of Tory MPs welcomed the plans to review the UK's export controls.

From what I've read especially in fast-fashion this is very welcomed by activists, but is very much a first step because companies just don't have the control or understanding of their supply chain - yet.

Also interesting is that on the same day Canada announced similar (but stricter) measures. I think it's an interesting fact that the government we are coordinating most with is Trudeau's Canada (Hong Kong, Xinjiang, Belarus, Nagarno-Karabakh) and the governments that we have invested most diplomatic effort in working with are Korea and Japan (multiple ministerial visits despite covid, largely around energy transition/climate commitments but also other issues). I had fears about what Brexit would mean for foreign policy but I think these steps on China (comments on Trump as well and focus on energy transition) makes me feel a little bit reassured and the focus on other similar-minded medium powers like Canada, Japan, Korea seems sensible and not delusional. I realise that's a very low bar, but it is worth noting that it's being cleared at this stage :lol:

Update - visa applications open at the end of the month :w00t:  :cry:

QuoteThe Hong Kong migrants fleeing to start new lives in the UK
By Michael Bristow
BBC News
    21 hours ago

The UK will introduce a new visa at the end of January that will give 5.4 million Hong Kong residents - a staggering 70% of the territory's population - the right to come and live in the UK, and eventually become citizens.

It is making this "generous" offer to residents of its former colony because it believes China is undermining Hong Kong's rights and freedoms.

Not everyone will come. Some of those eligible to leave have expressed their determination to stay and continue the fight for democracy.

In the end, Britain estimates that about 300,000 will take up the visa offer over the next five years.

But some are so keen to leave that they are already in the UK, including Andy Li and his wife Teri Wong.

(https://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/976/cpsprodpb/BE1F/production/_116217684_andyliandfamily-002.jpg)
Andy Li (L) and Teri Wong (R) have already moved to the UK to give their children better opportunities

The couple moved to the city of York with their daughter Gudelia and son Paul in October, shortly after Britain announced it was planning to launch the new visa scheme.

They made the move primarily for their children.

"We feel that the things we treasure about Hong Kong - our core values - are fading over time," said Mr Li.

"So we decided we needed to provide a better opportunity for our children, not only for their education, but also for their futures."

For Mr Li, Britain provides the kind of society - the rule of law, freedom of speech, democratic elections - that he longed for in Hong Kong.

Mrs Wong said she wanted her children to be able to say what they wanted at school, not like in Hong Kong, where they had to be careful. "That's not the life we want them to have," she said.

Britain has allowed Hong Kong residents like Mr Li and his family to move to the UK even before the new visa comes into force.

But from 31 January, they can begin the process of applying for citizenship, which will take six years.

In the meantime, they will have to fund themselves, although they will be able to get healthcare and have their children educated.

Gudelia, who is 14, and Paul, 11, have already found a new school.

Mr Li continues to work remotely for a Chinese electronics company based in Shenzhen, the Chinese city just over the border from Hong Kong.

The family are excited about their new life, but others have arrived with less of a sense of starting something good as fleeing something bad.

One person who did not want to be identified came to Britain recently after taking part in pro-democracy protests in Hong Kong in 2019.

"I fear for the safety and security of the friends and family who decided to stay behind," the 23-year-old told the BBC.

"And I am afraid I will also become a target for the Hong Kong authorities because of my active participation in the protests."

But even this person has hope for a better life: "Being granted a chance to live here is a dream come true."

Since the UK handed back its former colony 23 years ago, relatively few of the territory's residents - less than 16,000 - have become British citizens.

That is certain to change, partly because the new visa scheme appears to offer few hurdles for the millions eligible to apply.

"I had clients applying to Canada, Australia and Taiwan who suspended their applications and now want to go to the UK," said Andrew Lo, a Hong Kong immigration adviser.

Another consultant in the territory, Colin Bloomfield, said the visa provisions did appear generous, although he said Britain might add more requirements that would make it harder to move.

The scheme is open to Hong Kong residents who claimed British National (Overseas), or BNO, status before the handover in 1997. A total of 2.9 million people registered and so can apply for the new visa.

Their dependants - an additional two-and-a-half million people - are also eligible to travel with them.

Teri Wong is the only person in her family who has registered for BNO status, but she has been allowed to bring her husband, who was born in China, and their two children to Britain with her.

'Why should I leave?'

Although the British government admits that as many as one million people could apply for the visa over the next five years, it thinks only a few hundred thousand will actually do so.

It believes most people will choose to remain in Hong Kong.

Some residents will not want to leave behind elderly parents or learn a new language; the British weather is certain to dissuade others.

Many do not want to abandon the territory to its fate.

"There is a certain number of people who do not want to leave, particularly the young. They would rather die in Hong Kong," said Mr Lo.

"I have a lot of clients who fight with their kids because the children don't want to emigrate. They say: 'Why should I leave? I should try my best to change this place'."

There is also the difficulty of finding work in Britain, as the country tries to recover from the coronavirus pandemic, and Brexit.

And if enough come, new arrivals could face resentment from British people who oppose too much immigration.

"In the cold light of day, many will decide to stay in Hong Kong," said Mr Bloomfield, whose company is called British Connections.

Regardless of how many apply, the British government said it had no choice but to offer Hong Kong people an escape route.

"This is not a question of numbers," said a Home Office spokesperson.

"The government is committed to giving British National (Overseas) citizens in Hong Kong a choice to come to the UK, fulfilling our historic commitment to them."

Britain believes that when China imposed its national security law on Hong Kong earlier this year, it breached the terms of the handover agreement signed by the two countries.

The space for expressing opinions that the Chinese government does not like has certainly narrowed since the law came into effect in July.

In the end, the number of Hong Kong residents emigrating to Britain might depend on how much more Beijing decides to squeeze.

Certainly some will consider politics to be their foremost consideration.  But I doubt the majority will think that way.  People come and go for a multitude of reasons, like job prospects, housing prices, quality of life, etc.  Most students in HK are trained to become office workers, and their chance of finding employment in the UK that is relevant to their training is very low.  Reports of people who have actually moved to the UK indicate that they are doing food delivery, or acting as Uber drivers and the like.  People who have children are more likely to move.  Their children will be a lot happier with the UK curriculum than the HK one, and they actually have some chance to get good jobs if they spend their childhood in the UK.  Some people simply sell their HK flats, most of them are worth at least a million pounds, and retire in the UK. 

Quote from: Monoriu on January 20, 2021, 05:12:55 PM
Certainly some will consider politics to be their foremost consideration.  But I doubt the majority will think that way.  People come and go for a multitude of reasons, like job prospects, housing prices, quality of life, etc.  Most students in HK are trained to become office workers, and their chance of finding employment in the UK that is relevant to their training is very low.

I've never heard someone suggest it might be challenging for office workers to find work in the UK before :blink: Our economy is very services based.

There may be fewer roles at the minute especially because of the pandemic especially, but it feels like an economy with big financial and professional services sectors should be a reasonably good mix for Hong Kongers, no? 

QuoteReports of people who have actually moved to the UK indicate that they are doing food delivery, or acting as Uber drivers and the like. 

Yeah I mean we'll see in the next 2 years or so because I think in lockdown there is just less hiring in general going on.

QuotePeople who have children are more likely to move.  Their children will be a lot happier with the UK curriculum than the HK one, and they actually have some chance to get good jobs if they spend their childhood in the UK.  Some people simply sell their HK flats, most of them are worth at least a million pounds, and retire in the UK.

Yeah it'll be interesting to see who actually comes. I sort of suspect the Home Office is underestimating the number who actually will (they have form for this).

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 05:43:38 PM
There may be fewer roles at the minute especially because of the pandemic especially, but it feels like an economy with big financial and professional services sectors should be a reasonably good mix for Hong Kongers, no? 

Because Chinese are so good with numbers?  :P

Quote from: Admiral Yi on January 20, 2021, 05:45:56 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on January 20, 2021, 05:43:38 PM
There may be fewer roles at the minute especially because of the pandemic especially, but it feels like an economy with big financial and professional services sectors should be a reasonably good mix for Hong Kongers, no? 

Because Chinese are so good with numbers?  :P

Because Hong Kong's got a big financial and professional services :P

There are a host of reasons.

First of all, lawyers and accountants etc in HK can't just practise in the UK.  They need to go through the entire accreditation process again.

Then there is the matter of lacking the networks and referrals.  The UK will not recognise HK experience. 

Then there is the language barrier. 

From what I have read and experienced myself, there are generally three possibilities.  One, forget about finding work at all.  Two, find blue collar work that is totally unrelated to what they do back in HK.  Three, find work in Chinese businesses.  See, the problem for the rioters who move to the UK is that, a lot of these Chinese businesses are Mainland owned.  They won't look too kindly on riot participants or supporters.  So their possibilities are narrowed to HK-owned businesses. 

I think it may actually be a good thing if large numbers of people move to the UK.  Many of these will be in supervisory or managerial positions.  Them moving away means promotions for the folks at the bottom.  It also means more opportunities for those who stay in other ways.  Their children who are studying in the elite schools in HK will give up their precious places for others.  The flats in HK will be sold or rented out, increasing the amount of living space available on the market, and so on. 

It's sad that the ones who could most benefit from and most want this, the young, are those who can't get it.
I really do suspect the tories did this for points knowing take up would be low.


What's the HK/Taiwan situation BTW? Can HKers just move there or are there visa hoops like any other foreigner?

Quote from: Tyr on January 20, 2021, 06:01:53 PM
It's sad that the ones who could most benefit from and most want this, the young, are those who can't get it.
I really do suspect the tories did this for points knowing take up would be low.


What's the HK/Taiwan situation BTW? Can HKers just move there or are there visa hoops like any other foreigner?

They have visa rules for HKers as well, but the cost is lower.  They let HKers move there if they "invest" in Taiwan.  The actual cost is much lower for Taiwan than Canada or Australia.  Taiwan also say they welcome rioters, and a couple of hundred have moved there.  It is tough to get actual citizenship though.  While they are allowed to stay, there is actually some controversy in Taiwan if they should welcome the HK rioters, as some have committed crimes like attempted murder, causing bodily harm, arson etc.  Of course, since 12 HKers were arrested by Mainland police when they tried to reach Taiwan by boat a few months ago, the number of people who tried to make the trip went down dramatically. 

There is also the small matter of Taiwan having one of the worst economies in East Asia in recent years.  Their own graduates can't find work.  So HKers who move to Taiwan can't find work either. 

Quote from: Monoriu on January 20, 2021, 05:59:41 PM
There are a host of reasons.

First of all, lawyers and accountants etc in HK can't just practise in the UK.  They need to go through the entire accreditation process again.

I don't know about the position for accountants but I'm fairly sure Hong Kong qualified lawyers can work in-house or, if they register as a foreign lawyer, in private practice. It normally just means their email signature says, for example, "Solicitor (qualified in Hong Kong)". It's fairly common to work with Australian, New Zealand, Ireland, Hong Kong or Singapore qualified lawyers (they're the most common) who haven't re-qualified, but they can if they want.

QuoteThen there is the matter of lacking the networks and referrals.  The UK will not recognise HK experience. 

I'm not so sure about this. Lots of people in London have worked in Hong Kong, or will work with Hong Kong now. They might not recognise the experience directly but it's a bit like with a CV coming from, say, Singapore or Chicago - it's kind of credible and people have an idea about Hong Kong. It's not like, for example, a second tier Chinese city that wouldn't be recognised.

QuoteThen there is the language barrier. 

Fair point.

QuoteFrom what I have read and experienced myself, there are generally three possibilities.  One, forget about finding work at all.  Two, find blue collar work that is totally unrelated to what they do back in HK.  Three, find work in Chinese businesses.  See, the problem for the rioters who move to the UK is that, a lot of these Chinese businesses are Mainland owned.  They won't look too kindly on riot participants or supporters.  So their possibilities are narrowed to HK-owned businesses. 

But how do they know? Do they just assume Hong Kong citizens living in the UK with a visa are riot participants or supporters? And obviously it could create issues for their operations here because it's illegal to discriminate based on political beliefs.

What about nurses, doctors, teachers, insurance agents, etc?

Rioters won't stop talking, that's why  :lol:  Someone who doesn't talk politics, like me, won't become a rioter in the first place.  A rioter complains and seeks change.  They'll want to talk politics, associate with other rioters, wear clothing and accessories that show their beliefs, etc. 

Quote from: Monoriu on January 20, 2021, 07:00:31 PM
What about nurses, doctors, teachers, insurance agents, etc?

:lol: As I say I don't know for other professions. But there are definitely Hong Kong doctors and nurses in the NHS already - the NHS has a huge number of internationally qualified staff (it's one of the reasons why the Filipino community in the UK has been so disproportionately hit by covid, they are a very small community but many work for the NHS).

It may surprise you but I think Hong Kong is, like Singapore, pretty well-regarded in the UK :P

The typical progression of a report from someone who moved to Taiwan is like this.

I got a huge house you suckers :contract: Cheap too.  Democracy!  No more Beijing bullshit!  Finally someone dares to say no to Beijing!  My children are way happier.  It is great fun to open a cafe.  Air I can breathe.  Open space.  The people are so nice compared to Hong Kong.  Sometimes I just stare at the sky.  Escape from the pressure cooker.  I feel human again. Blah blah blah.

Nine months later, the author is back to HK again.  "Well, it was great, except my cafe has been losing money and the numbers just don't add up..."

They should have bought a McDonald's franchise.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on January 20, 2021, 07:16:51 PM
They should have bought a McDonald's franchise.

Sure.  Thing is, Taiwan is a fully developed, industrialised place.  We are not talking about settling in a new continent, Columbus style.  There are opportunities but the question "if it is profitable, maybe the Taiwanese would have done it already" should be kept in mind at all times. 

Taiwan isn't doing well.  The typical income of a university graduate is US$1,500 a month.  Just google 22k Taiwan.  There is a reason why, despite their troubled relationship with the Mainland, hundreds of thousands of Taiwanese are working on the Mainland. 

Just like how the Chinese nationalistically declare the superiorit of China to all the world yet emigrated in the tens of millions to places that are not China.

Things happen.

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 08:42:37 PM
Just like how the Chinese nationalistically declare the superiorit of China to all the world yet emigrated in the tens of millions to places that are not China.

Things happen.

This is well known.  The powerful, rich, well-connected people who cry China is greatest are exactly the types who tend to hold foreign passports, send their children, family, and money abroad, and buy American goods. 

In Hong Kong, almost the entire senior management of Education Department send their children overseas to be educated. 

Speaking of Taiwanese emigrating I was a little taken aback to see randos, though thankfully very few so far, calling out Andrew Yang as a CCP asset as he starts his NYC Mayor campaign. Anti-Chinese hysteria is coming to America...again.

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 09:17:01 PM
Speaking of Taiwanese emigrating I was a little taken aback to see randos, though thankfully very few so far, calling out Andrew Yang as a CCP asset as he starts his NYC Mayor campaign. Anti-Chinese hysteria is coming to America...again.

I don't know.  When you stay in other people's country, you don't try to meddle in their politics.  I make a point not to participate in Canadian politics when I was in Vancouver.  I didn't vote, didn't talk about the candidates or parties, didn't put up any signs, didn't participate in any political event (there were some on my campus), etc.  That is for the best. 

Well Andrew Yang is the son of Taiwanese immigrants. So he is only meddling in his own politics.

But I was just surprised to see that that was sufficient to suspect he was a CCP agent.

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 09:36:07 PM
Well Andrew Yang is the son of Taiwanese immigrants. So he is only meddling in his own politics.

But I was just surprised to see that that was sufficient to suspect he was a CCP agent.

Well, people call me a CCP agent too  :lol:

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 09:17:01 PM
Speaking of Taiwanese emigrating I was a little taken aback to see randos, though thankfully very few so far, calling out Andrew Yang as a CCP asset as he starts his NYC Mayor campaign. Anti-Chinese hysteria is coming to America...again.

I think that's just part of the existing package of Trumptard memes. 

Trump stood up to the Chinks by making them buy more patriotic soybeans (which AFAIK they haven't done yet).
The Chinks, along with their bosom buddy Maduro, bribed all the election officials in states that went Biden.

Quote from: Monoriu on January 20, 2021, 09:32:44 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 09:17:01 PM
Speaking of Taiwanese emigrating I was a little taken aback to see randos, though thankfully very few so far, calling out Andrew Yang as a CCP asset as he starts his NYC Mayor campaign. Anti-Chinese hysteria is coming to America...again.

I don't know.  When you stay in other people's country, you don't try to meddle in their politics.  I make a point not to participate in Canadian politics when I was in Vancouver.  I didn't vote, didn't talk about the candidates or parties, didn't put up any signs, didn't participate in any political event (there were some on my campus), etc.  That is for the best.

You've changed so much since you left for your home country, where you regulardly indulge in political discussions about candidates or parties, put up signs and participated in every political event of the last decade in HK.

Quote from: Monoriu on January 20, 2021, 09:39:50 PM

Quote from: Valmy on January 20, 2021, 09:36:07 PM
Well Andrew Yang is the son of Taiwanese immigrants. So he is only meddling in his own politics.

But I was just surprised to see that that was sufficient to suspect he was a CCP agent.

Well, people call me a CCP agent too  :lol:

Surprising.  As if all that criticism about Winnie-the-Pooh wasn't enough to label you as a freedom fighter for all Chinese, HKers and mainland alike.

Quote from: Monoriu on January 20, 2021, 09:32:44 PM

I don't know.  When you stay in other people's country, you don't try to meddle in their politics.  I make a point not to participate in Canadian politics when I was in Vancouver.  I didn't vote, didn't talk about the candidates or parties, didn't put up any signs, didn't participate in any political event (there were some on my campus), etc.  That is for the best.

If you make it your home it's your country, whatever your nationality is. You're already meddling by living there.

Visa applications are now open - I imagine there won't be many applications because of covid.

Also for holders of BN(O) passports, Hong Kong SAR passports or EEA passports there will be an online application portal on 23 February. Crucially there is no requirement to visit a visa application centre for the online application route.

Very hopeful people can easily take advantage of this (probably once covid's less of an issue).

I have said it before and I will say it again.  It is best for everybody if the rioters and their sympathisers leave. 

In the long-run, a population exchange is needed to resolve the situation.  Those who insist in HK independence, a closed and protected market from the Mainland, and democracy should leave.  The financial, IT and other Mainland specialists that are really needed in the economy and are willing to obey Hong Kong's laws come and replace them. 

Hong Kong will get better and more productive people, get rid of the rioters, reduce the population pressure and housing prices, allow more social mobility, and cut down on the number of votes and political support for the rioters.  We need people who understand the Mainland market to do business with them.  Those who fail to compete in this new reality are welcome to leave. 

In other words, we want the best of the best.  Not those who happen to be born here. 

Mono, suppose you are willing to live and work according to Beijing's rules, what does Hong Kong offer that you can't get even better in Shanghai? Why would the best choose Hong Kong? The unique advantage Hong Kong had was rule of law. 

Quote from: Zanza on February 01, 2021, 01:49:44 AM
Mono, suppose you are willing to live and work according to Beijing's rules, what does Hong Kong offer that you can't get even better in Shanghai? Why would the best choose Hong Kong? The unique advantage Hong Kong had was rule of law.

Well, the rule of law is still the strongest in Hong Kong compared with the rest of China.  Hong Kong is the only international financial centre in Greater China.  Shanghai isn't an international financial centre.  At least not yet.  You can access google in HK, but not in Shanghai.

Working and living under Beijing's rules isn't difficult.  I see no need to adjust my own behaviour.  If you are content with being politically apathetic, I don't think it will affect you either. 

And someone like me doesn't really have a choice.  I can't find work in Shanghai. 

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 03:00:58 AM

Well, the rule of law is still the strongest in Hong Kong compared with the rest of China.

That's damning with faint praise.

Also it's just a matter of time until the ChiComs start to kidnap westerners in Hong Kong like they do in the mainland when western states don't behave as the want. Like the show trials against Canadians when that Huawei director was arrested in Canada.

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 03:00:58 AM
If you are content with being politically apathetic,

Do you know such a person because that person is not you :lol:

You are pretty fanatically partisan. You even use slurs for your opponents, I don't even do that.

Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2021, 08:42:17 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 03:00:58 AM
If you are content with being politically apathetic,

Do you know such a person because that person is not you :lol:

You are pretty fanatically partisan. You even use slurs for your opponents, I don't even do that.

I have strong views, but I don't act on them  :bowler:

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 03:00:58 AM

Quote from: Zanza on February 01, 2021, 01:49:44 AM
Mono, suppose you are willing to live and work according to Beijing's rules, what does Hong Kong offer that you can't get even better in Shanghai? Why would the best choose Hong Kong? The unique advantage Hong Kong had was rule of law.

Well, the rule of law is still the strongest in Hong Kong compared with the rest of China. 

How long will that be true? As HK laws become mainland laws won't finance leave the city?

Quote from: HVC on February 01, 2021, 10:28:05 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 03:00:58 AM

Quote from: Zanza on February 01, 2021, 01:49:44 AM
Mono, suppose you are willing to live and work according to Beijing's rules, what does Hong Kong offer that you can't get even better in Shanghai? Why would the best choose Hong Kong? The unique advantage Hong Kong had was rule of law.

Well, the rule of law is still the strongest in Hong Kong compared with the rest of China. 

How long will that be true? As HK laws become mainland laws won't finance leave the city?

It is not like there is a choice.  We all know what happened in 2019.  At least half the population basically revolted.  Of course, the best course of action was maintaining the pre-2019 status quo, but the rioters at least succeeded in making sure that option was not sustainable.  Not even Beijing could choose that option anymore. 

No, there were only two options.  Either give in to their demands, or take strong measures to rein them in. 

I am not too worried about finance leaving the city.  In a lot of ways, Singapore is more draconian than Hong Kong, and finance stays there.  If you want a finance base somewhere in Greater China, HK is still the best bet. 

It's not the draconian laws that will make finance leave, it's the lack of faith in chinese laws. That's what's made HK attractive. Access to the asian market with the assurance of dependable laws.

Quote from: HVC on February 01, 2021, 11:04:19 PM
It's not the draconian laws that will make finance leave, it's the lack of faith in chinese laws. That's what's made HK attractive. Access to the asian market with the assurance of dependable laws.

I have no idea why you keep insisting that HK now uses Mainland laws.  The Basic Law has a provision that allows Beijing to impose any law on Hong Kong.  That is not new.  It is there from the beginning.  Beijing introduced a National Security Law to combat very obvious riots and civil unrest.  Not to screw the fund managers.  If I were a fund manager, I wouldn't be too concerned. 

Otherwise, most things remain unchanged.  Life goes on. 

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 10:55:25 PMIf you want a finance base somewhere in Greater China, HK is still the best bet.

Where does Taipei place itself in this? Is that an option?

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 10:08:13 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2021, 08:42:17 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 03:00:58 AM
If you are content with being politically apathetic,

Do you know such a person because that person is not you :lol:

You are pretty fanatically partisan. You even use slurs for your opponents, I don't even do that.

I have strong views, but I don't act on them  :bowler:

You don't have to, your side is winning.

Quote from: Threviel on February 02, 2021, 01:41:43 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 10:55:25 PMIf you want a finance base somewhere in Greater China, HK is still the best bet.

Where does Taipei place itself in this? Is that an option?

Not a chance  :lol:  Hong Kong still controls the bulk of the capital flows of China.  That's why HK is so important to Beijing.  No way Beijing will allow Taipei such a level of control over its finances. 

Quote from: Maladict on February 02, 2021, 03:18:47 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 10:08:13 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2021, 08:42:17 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 03:00:58 AM
If you are content with being politically apathetic,

Do you know such a person because that person is not you :lol:

You are pretty fanatically partisan. You even use slurs for your opponents, I don't even do that.

I have strong views, but I don't act on them  :bowler:

You don't have to, your side is winning.

I strongly believe that one person has no way of influencing the world.  The only proper way for me to interact with the world is through monetary transactions.  Otherwise I cannot, and should not influence anybody.  The world is like a Super Mario Bros game.  Essentially, I have to play by the programmers' rules. 

The point that I am trying to make is, you know precious little about me  :P

We just need somebody to hack or mod a Super Mario Bros Games then.  :P

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 02, 2021, 04:59:33 AM
We just need somebody to hack or mod a Super Mario Bros Games then.  :P

We are mere spectators :contract:

Quote from: Monoriu on February 02, 2021, 04:56:34 AM

I strongly believe that one person has no way of influencing the world.  The only proper way for me to interact with the world is through monetary transactions.  Otherwise I cannot, and should not influence anybody.  The world is like a Super Mario Bros game.  Essentially, I have to play by the programmers' rules. 

The point that I am trying to make is, you know precious little about me  :P

If you cannot influence anybody or anything, there's no reason to be concerned about what you should or should not do, it wouldn't make a difference.

And the only thing I know about you is how you present yourself here. That's entirely within your influence.

Quote from: Maladict on February 02, 2021, 05:11:46 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on February 02, 2021, 04:56:34 AM

I strongly believe that one person has no way of influencing the world.  The only proper way for me to interact with the world is through monetary transactions.  Otherwise I cannot, and should not influence anybody.  The world is like a Super Mario Bros game.  Essentially, I have to play by the programmers' rules. 

The point that I am trying to make is, you know precious little about me  :P

If you cannot influence anybody or anything, there's no reason to be concerned about what you should or should not do, it wouldn't make a difference.

And the only thing I know about you is how you present yourself here. That's entirely within your influence.

Exactly.  Why vote when I cannot influence the outcome?  That's why I don't vote.  I firmly believe that my one vote will never make any difference.  It is also morally wrong for me to influence others politically.  Even if my one vote may decide Trump vs Biden (I have a strong preference for Biden), I won't vote.  Because it is wrong for me to do so. 

And you know what, I post here.  In an obscure English forum 99.99999% of Hong Kongers have not heard of.  There are tons of forums in HK.  Have you ever considered why I post here instead of the HK forums? 

To ensure I don't influence anybody in Hong Kong :contract:

Quote from: Monoriu on February 02, 2021, 05:04:29 AM

Quote from: Duque de Bragança on February 02, 2021, 04:59:33 AM
We just need somebody to hack or mod a Super Mario Bros Games then.  :P

We are mere spectators :contract:

Mere Spectators?
If I am to believe Debord, we are in the Society of the Spectacle, anyways.  :P

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Society_of_the_Spectacle)

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 11:14:38 PM

Quote from: HVC on February 01, 2021, 11:04:19 PM
It's not the draconian laws that will make finance leave, it's the lack of faith in chinese laws. That's what's made HK attractive. Access to the asian market with the assurance of dependable laws.

I have no idea why you keep insisting that HK now uses Mainland laws.  The Basic Law has a provision that allows Beijing to impose any law on Hong Kong.  That is not new.  It is there from the beginning.  Beijing introduced a National Security Law to combat very obvious riots and civil unrest.  Not to screw the fund managers.  If I were a fund manager, I wouldn't be too concerned. 

Otherwise, most things remain unchanged.  Life goes on. 

Its true Hong Kong has long been on shaky ground.
However before recent events the was an element of trust with China. A belief that "Sure, they could swoop in at any moment and alter the laws in their favour, but they won't, they're happy with the status quo, they value money over ensuring authoritarian control over one small city.".
Recent events have shown the flaw in this belief.
The question then becomes who is trusted more, the Singapore government (or whoever else) or the Chinese government.

With the general global economic movements away from China towards SE Asia picking up speed Singapore is really well placed for the future.

Yeah - it's not freedom that's the issue for companies or funds, it's certainty and predicitibility.

Quote from: Monoriu on February 02, 2021, 05:16:05 AM

Quote from: Maladict on February 02, 2021, 05:11:46 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on February 02, 2021, 04:56:34 AM

I strongly believe that one person has no way of influencing the world.  The only proper way for me to interact with the world is through monetary transactions.  Otherwise I cannot, and should not influence anybody.  The world is like a Super Mario Bros game.  Essentially, I have to play by the programmers' rules. 

The point that I am trying to make is, you know precious little about me  :P

If you cannot influence anybody or anything, there's no reason to be concerned about what you should or should not do, it wouldn't make a difference.

And the only thing I know about you is how you present yourself here. That's entirely within your influence.

Exactly.  Why vote when I cannot influence the outcome?  That's why I don't vote.  I firmly believe that my one vote will never make any difference.  It is also morally wrong for me to influence others politically.  Even if my one vote may decide Trump vs Biden (I have a strong preference for Biden), I won't vote.  Because it is wrong for me to do so. 

And you know what, I post here.  In an obscure English forum 99.99999% of Hong Kongers have not heard of.  There are tons of forums in HK.  Have you ever considered why I post here instead of the HK forums? 

To ensure I don't influence anybody in Hong Kong :contract:

And here I thought it was because you like us.  :(

Quote from: Tyr on February 02, 2021, 05:45:43 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 11:14:38 PM

Quote from: HVC on February 01, 2021, 11:04:19 PM
It's not the draconian laws that will make finance leave, it's the lack of faith in chinese laws. That's what's made HK attractive. Access to the asian market with the assurance of dependable laws.

I have no idea why you keep insisting that HK now uses Mainland laws.  The Basic Law has a provision that allows Beijing to impose any law on Hong Kong.  That is not new.  It is there from the beginning.  Beijing introduced a National Security Law to combat very obvious riots and civil unrest.  Not to screw the fund managers.  If I were a fund manager, I wouldn't be too concerned. 

Otherwise, most things remain unchanged.  Life goes on. 

Its true Hong Kong has long been on shaky ground.
However before recent events the was an element of trust with China. A belief that "Sure, they could swoop in at any moment and alter the laws in their favour, but they won't, they're happy with the status quo, they value money over ensuring authoritarian control over one small city.".
Recent events have shown the flaw in this belief.
The question then becomes who is trusted more, the Singapore government (or whoever else) or the Chinese government.

With the general global economic movements away from China towards SE Asia picking up speed Singapore is really well placed for the future.

I don't think Singapore is a real equivalent to Hong Kong.  The big draw of Hong Kong is the listing of Chinese companies.  They are not going to list in Singapore.  They want to list in a place they know they can trust.  Because of the ongoing trade war between the US and China, many Chinese companies originally listed in the NYSE want to move back to HK.  Singapore isn't a real competitor to HK in this regard.  If the investment banks want to play this game, they'll have to do it in HK. 

Quote from: Eddie Teach on February 02, 2021, 06:02:24 AM


And here I thought it was because you like us.  :(

:hug:

Spies like us. :)

Чем меньше ты знаешь, тем лучше.

Quote from: Monoriu on February 02, 2021, 04:56:34 AM

Quote from: Maladict on February 02, 2021, 03:18:47 AM

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 10:08:13 PM

Quote from: Valmy on February 01, 2021, 08:42:17 PM

Quote from: Monoriu on February 01, 2021, 03:00:58 AM
If you are content with being politically apathetic,

Do you know such a person because that person is not you :lol:

You are pretty fanatically partisan. You even use slurs for your opponents, I don't even do that.

I have strong views, but I don't act on them  :bowler:

You don't have to, your side is winning.

I strongly believe that one person has no way of influencing the world. 

more than enough example from history (and not even old history) that render your belief invalid

Totally agree with this article - doubt we'll have learned those lessons but it would be worth it:

QuoteHong Kong: Britain must prepare now for a great wave of immigrants
Failure to plan for the migration that followed Europe's eastward expansion led to political chaos and Brexit. But as the UK opens the door to Hong Kong, we're failing to plan once again

By
James Ball

April 14, 2021

There is a case to be made that Tony Blair and his Home Office were the architects of Brexit. It's an argument that stems from the choices made around the 2004 entry to the EU of the "accession eight" (A8)—the Union's new Eastern European members.

Unlike the overwhelming majority of established EU states, the UK did not introduce any initial restrictions on the right to live and work in the country for citizens of the A8 nations—the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia. We treated their citizens like other EU nationals from the off.

The Home Office had predicted that the number of people moving from those nations to the UK would be less than 20,000 a year. In reality, in the first three years alone, some 250,000 people from the A8 nations came to the UK—often skilled workers providing a challenge to existing UK tradespeople. The fabled Polish plumber had arrived.

Inevitably, all this immigration wasn't evenly spread across the country. Particular employers and sectors developed links with national communities, and the newcomers naturally often wanted to live near people they knew, or at least to get familiar food from home or something similar. Especially in the east of England, soon a particularly strong region for Ukip, some towns that had never previously seen much immigration witnessed large influxes of economic migrants.

Even though the data shows the people from A8 countries brought considerable net economic benefits to Britain, unexpected and unplanned migration has consequences: pressure for housing increased, there was more competition for school places, some people's businesses suffered thanks to new rivals. The sense of competition for resources intensified after the economy cratered in 2007/8, and then through the long squeeze on wages and public service spending that followed the crash.

All this in turn fed into less reasonable resentments—complaints that people on the bus weren't speaking English, and so on—and by the 2010s had propelled immigration to the top flight—and sometimes the very top spot—of polling tables about the issues voters said they cared most about.

Back in 2004, the decision not to restrict immigration from A8 countries was not, at the time, a major political issue. Not even the Conservative opposition resisted it. But the political consequences have rocked through the years since—Britain is an island at the edge of a big continent. It is not used to large-scale immigration and on recent form, doesn't react well to it.

All this might be dismissed as a history lesson, but for one thing: the UK has every reason to expect another major influx of new, skilled migrants—this time from Hong Kong.

The UK, having now plainly failed on its 1997 promise to protect the freedoms of Hong Kong's people after handing the region to China, has extended them an offer to move here through a new visa scheme. This is not small beer—estimates suggest around 5.4m people are eligible to move to the UK under the new programme, and where the official estimates for A8 immigration were in the low tens of thousands, this time they are much higher: suggesting 300,000 or more people could move to the UK from Hong Kong in the next few years.

The scenarios are not identical: citizens of the A8 countries were desperate to move to countries offering much better wages for the same work—and concentrated on the few EU states that were immediately open to them. Hong Kongers are not looking to emigrate for economic reasons, but political ones. But what's similar is that at least some of them have very few options, and the UK is high on their list.

Numerous articles have been written extolling the potential benefits of this immigration—and as far as they go they are absolutely right. Around two-thirds of people in Hong Kong speak English, and it is a high-skilled workforce that could help support the government's "Global Britain" ambitions. In economic terms, an influx from Hong Kong looks like a sure-fire winner.

The experience of the A8 wave of immigration should teach us to sound a note of caution, though. If A8 disrupted life and bred resentment among tradespeople and construction workers, large-scale immigration from Hong Kong could disrupt several high-status middle-class occupations. Unhappy professionals have a knack for making a political fuss. And just like the A8ers, Hong Kongers will likely move into a few specific cities, rather than spread uniformly. There are bound to be pressures on certain local public services and housing markets.

None of this is to say the UK has done the wrong thing, or should change course. What it does mean is that the UK could be using the time Covid-19 crisis has bought it—few people are moving continent during a pandemic—to work out how to get immigration and integration right this time.

We know that a wave of high-skilled immigration will boost the public coffers, so we shouldn't be afraid to spend a bit of money early on—making sure councils where lots of people move from Hong Kong have extra support, so services don't suffer. Language learning assistance, support services for integrating into a new country, and publicity measures explaining why the UK has offered sanctuary to Hong Kong's people—emphasising the historic ties and promises made by Britain—could all help.

The government has announced a limited selection of measures, but so far has allocated just £43m to those efforts—which is less than £150 for every expected arrival, even if the official estimates are right this time. Skimping on the pennies now could cost pounds—and warp politics—later.

Councils, meanwhile, don't even know what they don't know. One London council, contacted by an NGO keen to make the Hong Kong visa moves a success, said it didn't foresee any issues because it had a sizeable Chinese population already, blithely unaware that there may be tensions between groups that identify with China, and those fleeing from it.

Blair made the decision not to restrict A8 immigration because he wanted to show Britain was a forward-looking, internationalist place—and ended up throwing us sharply in the opposite direction. Let's make sure this government's decision to help the people of Hong Kong does not do the same again.


James Ball
James Ball is Global Editor at the Bureau of Investigative Journalism

The thing about that London council is slightly alarming. Most of the British-Chinese community is still Cantonese and originally moved from Hong Kong, but the fastest growing (and most recent) in the last couple of decades have been from the Mainland which may not go down well.

Interestingly early stats. I feel 30,000 in the first two months during a pandemic and UK lockdown may indicate the Home Office estimate is possibly on the low side - again :lol: :bleeding:

And shameful details on the number of refugees being settled.

QuoteUK receives 34,000 visa requests from Hong Kong in two months
Residency route was launched in response to national security law imposed by Chinese government
Jamie Grierson Home affairs correspondent
@JamieGrierson
Thu 27 May 2021 12.27 BST

There have been 34,000 applications for a new visa for people from Hong Kong seeking residency in the UK in just two months, the Home Office has revealed.

This compares with applications for visas of any type by just 5,354 EU citizens in the first three months of the year, including as short-term visitors. There were also 26,903 applications for asylum relating to 32,411 people in the UK in the whole of the year ending March.

The new route allows holders of British national (overseas) status and their immediate families to apply for BNO entry visas for either two periods of 30 months or a single period of five years. After five years they can apply to settle in the UK, and for citizenship after a further 12 months.

The route was launched in response to a harsh new national security law imposed on Hong Kong by the Chinese government.

Figures published on Thursday revealed there were 34,300 applications for the BNO route in the first three months of 2021, although it was only opened to applications on 31 January. So far, 7,200 of the applications have been granted.

An economic impact assessment by the Home Office published last year gave a "high" range estimate of 500,000 people with BNO status and their dependants arriving in the UK in the first year, with more than 1 million over five years.

Madeleine Sumption, director of the Migration Observatory at the University of Oxford, said: "There's no reliable way to predict how many people from Hong Kong will move to the UK in the long term. The levels we are seeing in these data can't be expected to be representative of future flows – they may be suppressed by the pandemic, or may represent a larger than normal first wave because of pent-up demand."

She added: "Covid has had an extraordinary impact on migration, and low migration from EU countries is one consequence of that. In fact, there's evidence that net migration from EU countries was actually negative last year. Add to that the impact of a more expensive and restrictive visa system for EU citizens and it makes sense that not many have come under the post-Brexit immigration rules."

The home secretary, Priti Patel, said she was "delighted" that there have been more than 34,000 applications for the Hong Kong visa.

The latest migration figures also revealed that just 353 refugees were resettled in the UK in the year to March through government programmes. It's the lowest number of refugees to have been relocated to the UK in a 12-month period under government resettlement programmes for at least 11 years, and compares with 4,968 for the 12 months to March 2020, and 5,796 in 2018-19.

While resettlement programmes were suspended in March 2020, organisations including Refugee Action and Refugee Council have been critical of the government's delay in getting them restarted, with other countries being much quicker.

The restart of refugee resettlement was announced in the House of Lords in November, but just eight people were welcomed to the UK between then and the end of 2020.

Resettlement programmes are schemes run by the government that work with the UN and the International Organization for Migration to identify refugees overseas, such as in countries neighbouring war zones, and relocate them to the UK with refugee status already granted.

Refugee Council and Refugee Action say they have concerns about the government's commitment to resettle a fair number of refugees, despite the home secretary promising at a speech on Monday an expansion of safe routes for refugees to reach the UK.

Tim Naor Hilton, chief executive at Refugee Action, said: "Despite the home secretary's pledge to expand safe routes for people, for the first time in years, there is no commitment to welcome a single refugee under resettlement programmes.

"Resettlement does not run on hot air. It is doomed unless the government can commit to an ambitious target that shows the world it is prepared to do its fair share to help refugees."

I would think any sort of infusion of people from HK would be a fairly big benefit to the UK. Population stagnation is a huge problem in the West and Hong Kongers are all educated, most speak passable English etc.

And they have a generation at least to get bad teeth and learn to pass out on the street when partying.

I think it will be a big plus for the country; the 52% probably disagree though.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 27, 2021, 09:27:38 AM
I think it will be a big plus for the country; the 52% probably disagree though.

:lol:

It has strong support from everyone at the minute. We'll see if the numbers climb particularly given the pittance the government have actually paid to help people moving over.

I think it'll be great - particularly if the younger people are able to make it over. And, you know, I think it is morally the right thing to do and I think the UK has a particular duty to offer people a way out as much as we can.

Edit: And to be honest I wasn't sure if many people would take up this route. 30,000 in February and March this year (given covid, given lockdown etc) has surpassed my expectations and I hope that is indicative and more people want to move.

The only downside is more pressure on housing. I do think that morally it is absolutely required and argued for a similar move back in the 1990s (in the pub with my mates, so...big deal  :lol: )

It will be interesting to see the numbers in a couple of years or so.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 27, 2021, 09:27:38 AM
I think it will be a big plus for the country; the 52% probably disagree though.

52% - 1.

As I have said before this should have been done in 1997.

Quote from: Agelastus on May 27, 2021, 12:14:23 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on May 27, 2021, 09:27:38 AM
I think it will be a big plus for the country; the 52% probably disagree though.

52% - 1.

As I have said before this should have been done in 1997.

Glad to hear it.

It was shameful it was not done back then. Hong Kong was always loyal to the UK, nice to see that loyalty being rewarded even 20+ years later.

Couple of things on this caught the eye recently.

First as expected uptake seems to be higher (especially given travel restrictions) than anticipated by the Home Office. Apparently it's expected that we'll be at around 125-150,000 for 2021 by year end. The Home Office estimate was that only 300,000 would actually move in the first five years of the scheme which seems like it's probably an underestimate. Not only that but there's amendments working their way through the Commons and a lot of backbench pressure to extend the scheme to all Hong Kongers including young people who aren't yet eligible - obviously that would be a very good thing.

Second though is that it has started some fights/tensions in the British Chinese community (with British tankies joining in :bleeding:) - in the UK historically the majority of British Chinese originate from Hong Kong/Cantonese communities in China so there's always been a Cantonese bent here. However in the last 20-30 years there has been a huge increase in the number of Mainland Chinese moving to the UK. Many are students but also many are moving for work and there has been a growing division between groups that align with the regime v groups that support the protesters. So there's competing Chinatown trade associations etc. I think this is something that has been relatively common in Australia, Canada and the US but is now starting to happen here - for example scuffles over protests in Chinatown (from the SCMP). All of those organisations (Min Quan Legal Centre, Federation of UK Fujian Chinese etc) have a history of backing pro-regime protests etc.

In this case it seems that a rally against anti-Asian hate was actually largely about the Chinese government - and was challenged by people with ties to Hong Kong with a counter-protest which was then attacked. Although using a widely supported sentiment like "racism is bad" reminds me of the Socialist Workers Party who run various front organisations like Stand Up To Racism or Stop The War which attract lots of well-meaning support, but then as you get deeper it starts to get more SWP-ish. And, as mentioned, we've seen fairly regular commemorations of key dates in the Hong Kong protests:

QuoteWhat a brawl at a rally against Asian hate and the BN(O) influx of Hongkongers can tell us about political fires between Chinese groups in the UK
    Experts warn there may be more confrontations between pro-Beijing groups and newly arrived Hong Kong immigrants over differing political views
    Hostility towards Hongkongers on social media and in the streets in recent months has caused them to feel insecure in their new home, says manager of group helping new arrivals to Britain
Laura Westbrook
Published: 8:01am, 30 Nov, 2021

(https://img.i-scmp.com/cdn-cgi/image/fit=contain,width=1098,format=auto/sites/default/files/styles/1200x800/public/d8/images/canvas/2021/11/29/ecfc44ac-4b3e-468e-97b7-174a21942c51_7cd55b89.jpg?itok=-TumaQyY&v=1638192493)
A scuffle breaks out between a pro-Beijing group and Hong Kong migrants during a rally in London's Chinatown on Saturday. Photo: Getty Images

A brawl at a rally against Asian hate in London over the weekend has exposed potential political tensions between Chinese groups in the UK, with the spotlight on a wave of Hongkongers migrating to the country under the British National (Overseas) visa scheme.

Experts warned there could be more confrontations between pro-Beijing groups and newly arrived Hong Kong immigrants, as established Chinese organisations are dealing with an influx of people holding different political views.

On Saturday, an anti-Asian hate rally was held in London's Chinatown, organised by the Min Quan Legal Centre, the Monitoring Group and the Federation of UK Fujian Chinese, with several organisations including the London Chinatown Chinese Association supporting the event.

(https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/d8/images/canvas/2021/11/29/36f7db54-ed82-446b-afe5-a8f474863faf_32afda76.jpg)
Pro-Beijing attendees hold placards during a rally in London's Chinatown on Saturday. Photo: Getty Images

A leaflet for the rally accused government leaders of using "anti-China rhetoric during the pandemic", culminating in violence against Chinese people and communities.

In the first three months of 2020, according to British police, there were at least 267 recorded hate crimes against Chinese, East Asian and Southeast Asian people in Britain, compared with 375 in the whole of 2019.

Organisers said on social media that the rally was a peaceful anti-racism gathering, accusing a counter-group of heckling them.

A group of Hong Kong migrants accusing rally-goers of ignoring human rights abuse in Hong Kong and Xinjiang had staged their own event, chanting slogans such as "shame on you". A person also waved a black Hong Kong independence flag.

(https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/d8/images/canvas/2021/11/29/1f0000a3-6831-427c-8b36-b7807e362e5e_ed18453d.jpg)
The rally, which was held at London's Chinatown (pictured) on Saturday, was described as a peaceful anti-racism gathering. Photo: Getty Images

Jabez Lam, manager of the Hackney Chinese Community Services, which has been assisting new arrivals from Hong Kong, said the violence erupted after the rally had finished. Lam, who was at the event, said a group of about six men had charged at the retreating Hong Kong group.

A brawl then ensued before police intervened. Several people were injured.

In a statement to the Post, the Metropolitan Police said they were investigating a report of an assault which had occurred at about 2.15pm on Saturday on Gerrard Street.

"A 19-year-old man reported being assaulted by a group of men. Inquiries are ongoing. There have been no arrests," the force said.

Victor Gao, a chair professor at Soochow University, said the protesters from Hong Kong had "hijacked" an approved rally for their own agenda and bore "more responsibility for the fistfights".

Gao said Chinese diaspora members in Britain were a diverse group, but had more in common "than what separates them".

"They may have different political views, but they need to express their views by abiding by the rule of law," he said.

The London Chinatown Chinese Association was among about 200 Chinese organisations in the UK which showed support for the national security law and the "patriots-only" legislature in Hong Kong via advertisements in Chinese newspapers in Britain.

The national security legislation was imposed by Beijing on Hong Kong in June last year to outlaw acts of secession, subversion, terrorism and collusion with foreign forces. This was followed by a shake-up of the city's electoral system in March to ensure only "patriots" could hold public office.

The Post has reached out to the London Chinatown Chinese Association and the Monitoring Group, a community-based anti-racism organisation, for comment.

Jabez Lam from the Hackney Chinese Community Services said he had observed hostility from some Chinese community groups towards Hongkongers on social media and in the streets in recent months in the form of verbal abuse, as well as physical attacks.

"The effect of such hostilities is causing disharmony in community relations, damage to community cohesion, and the Hong Kong community living in fear and feeling insecure in their new home," he said.

(https://cdn.i-scmp.com/sites/default/files/d8/images/canvas/2021/11/29/bfe1c485-eee4-4ad9-8178-95e7bda00365_d37f2986.jpg)
Hong Kong activists were among those who staged a pro-democracy march in London and burned a Chinese flag outside the country's embassy in Marylebone on October 1. Photo: Twitter

On October 1, during China's National Day, Hong Kong activists protesting in London were among those who staged a pro-democracy march and burned a Chinese flag outside the country's embassy in Marylebone. They had also set off flares with smoke.

In 2019, a 19-year-old man was arrested in Sheffield after clashes among students who were protesting and calling for democracy in Hong Kong. In the same year, eggs were thrown at people gathering to attend a concert by Canto-pop singer and political activist Denise Ho Wan-sze, as opposing crowds waved Chinese flags and shouted pro-Beijing slogans.

Steve Tsang, director of the China Institute at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said historically the Chinese communities of Britain had come from Hong Kong because of the colonial connection. However, the mainland Chinese immigrant community had grown faster in recent years and was now bigger.

"The mainland Chinese community in Britain generally supports the policies of Beijing and can be aggressive in its attempt to silence voices sympathetic to those speaking out for Hong Kong and Xinjiang," he said.

The issue with Xinjiang, a northwestern region in China, centres on accusations by the West that the central government has suppressed ethnic minorities there.

Benedict Rogers, founder of the Hong Kong Watch (HKW) group, said some Chinese organisations with close ties to the Chinese embassy regarded arriving Hongkongers in Britain as political opponents, and "for that reason are very hostile towards them".

With the January 31 introduction by the UK of the BN(O) visa scheme in response to Beijing's imposition of the national security law, some 88,900 Hongkongers have applied for the pathway to citizenship, of which 76,176 have been approved.

The scheme allows those with BN(O) status and their dependants to live, work and study in Britain for up to five years, and to apply for citizenship after six.

"It is regrettable but not surprising that an incident like what happened in Chinatown in London over the weekend materialised," Tsang said.

With a growing Hong Kong diaspora in Britain, including members who had taken part in the 2019 anti-government protests in the city, Tsang said such groups would be vocal in speaking up for rights in their hometown, and would stand their ground when confronted by mainland Chinese opponents defending Beijing's policy.

"This makes this kind of confrontation potentially more likely if not policed well," he added.

Germany had conflicts like that between groups with Turkish and Kurdish backgrounds.

The Chinese government is very aggressive in cracking down on expats and the Chinese diaspora. The have full on government agencies dedicated to managing overseas organizations and bringing pressure to bear to ensure they comply.

A non-trivial number of the overseas Chinese at pro-regime protests are there because they're incentivized in various ways (positively or negatively).

On the other hand, once expat or immigrant Chinese flip - coming to terms with the negatives of the CCP - they tend to flip hard.

Quote from: Sheilbh on April 14, 2021, 05:31:21 AM
Totally agree with this article - doubt we'll have learned those lessons but it would be worth it:

The thing about that London council is slightly alarming. Most of the British-Chinese community is still Cantonese and originally moved from Hong Kong, but the fastest growing (and most recent) in the last couple of decades have been from the Mainland which may not go down well.

Missing the point a bit but not sure I'd agree with open doors to Poland et al being the maker of Brexit. That proved to be pretty uncontroversial with the UK being in a boom economy with a shortage of workers at the time.
It was Romania and Bulgaria which made the difference, coming as they did during a recession.

I think the problem with the first batch of eastern europeans was just absolutely awful comms. Too many have this idea of eastern europe as a perpetually poor exporter of migrants. In actual fact all numbers suggest even sans brexit we'd hit the peak in the mid 2010s as the pre-2000 backlog of people potentially interested in moving has dwindled to virtually nothing and the economies over there catch up with the west fast meaning less push for the young to make the move.

I am surprised we are getting many takers with the current batch.
Though good news brewing that MPs are actually pushing to extend these rights to the HKers most likely to want /need to use them.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/28/british-mps-call-for-law-changes-young-hongkongers-escape-to-uk

Quote

More than nine in 10 people who have faced protest charges in Hong Kong are too young to access a UK visa scheme dedicated to helping Hongkongers flee to Britain, according to advocates and MPs calling for new laws to assist them.

The release of the figures on Sunday by the advocacy group Hong Kong Watch comes before a parliamentary debate this week on proposed migration law amendments that would widen the pathway for people with British national (overseas) (BNO) status to resettle in the UK.

More than 10,000 people were arrested during or after the mass protests that swept Hong Kong in 2019. The data found that 93% of more than 1,000 who had been tried by July this year were under the age of 25.

Another 49 people arrested under the national security law were also under the age of 25. Last week the 20-year-old student activist Tony Chung was jailed for 43 months on charges relating to pro-independence social media posts.

In the wake of the crackdown on protesters and pro-democracy figures that sent people fleeing overseas, the UK launched its BNO visa scheme, allowing holders of BNO status and their immediate families – estimated at the time to be about 5 million people – to apply for dedicated entry visas with a pathway to full citizenship.

Tens of thousands applied in the first few months, but there has been long-running concern that people born after 1997, when Hong Kong was handed back to China, are not eligible to move to the UK under the scheme unless accompanied by a parent with BNO status.

Hong Kong Watch said the scheme in its current form has "left behind" young people, and called for the adoption of a borders bill amendment that was proposed by Damian Green and has the support of at least 12 Conservative MPs including the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, Tom Tugendhat, and the former Tory party leader Iain Duncan Smith.

The amendment would see the home secretary expand the BNO visa scheme to Hongkongers who have a BNO status-holding parent and are aged between 18 and 25.

"The BNO scheme is a great success story which the government should take credit for, but sadly the current scheme does not cover many of the brave young activists in Hong Kong," said Duncan Smith.

"Many of these pro-democracy campaigners are in danger of being prosecuted by the intolerant Chinese Communist party and its representatives in Hong Kong. I urge the government to think carefully about helping these people too."

Green, a former immigration minister, said his amendment would also relieve pressure on Britain's refugee processing.

"My amendment would mandate a simple rule change that would ensure our immigration system offers a lifeline to the young people who need it most," he said. "If we do not rationalise the policy in this way, many of these people will inevitably end up claiming asylum because they face political prosecution."

Hong Kong Watch said a recent survey of 24 Hong Kong asylum seekers who were waiting to have their applications processed in the UK found that half had at least one BNO status-holding parent.

Quote from: Tyr on November 30, 2021, 11:43:15 AM
Missing the point a bit but not sure I'd agree with open doors to Poland et al being the maker of Brexit. That proved to be pretty uncontroversial with the UK being in a boom economy with a shortage of workers at the time.
It was Romania and Bulgaria which made the difference, coming as they did during a recession.

I think the problem with the first batch of eastern europeans was just absolutely awful comms. Too many have this idea of eastern europe as a perpetually poor exporter of migrants. In actual fact all numbers suggest even sans brexit we'd hit the peak in the mid 2010s as the pre-2000 backlog of people potentially interested in moving has dwindled to virtually nothing and the economies over there catch up with the west fast meaning less push for the young to make the move.

I don't think that's the argument - I think it's that failing to plan and properly prepare made things worse and helped drive Brexit. And it is a failure when you estimate that, what, less than 20,000 people from the EU10 will come every year and when it comes to the Settled Status applications (which is not the peak) there's over 1.1 million Poles alone. That's a prediction and planning failure as well as comms.

I think that difference in scale requires a different of plans and ways to adapt etc. The problem wasn't the open door or people coming but the failure to anticipate that people might want to come to the UK at all.

It's the weird paradox at the heart of British attitudes to immigration that most people in Britain on right or left can't understand or sympathise with why anyone would want to move here :lol:

QuoteI am surprised we are getting many takers with the current batch.
Though good news brewing that MPs are actually pushing to extend these rights to the HKers most likely to want /need to use them.

Agreed - and I think it is possibly a sign of how bad things are getting in Hong Kong. The reporting on that stopped because covid took over, now it's more difficult to report and the covid restrictions plus the National Security Law really ended the protests. But I think the screws have just kept tightening over the last year.

And I totally agree and I think it's essential that we offer a way out for the most affected, at risk young people - I think so far we have had a few asylum claims and the vast majority have a parent with a BN(O) passport so even extending it in that way would probably help hugely.

Quote from: Tyr on November 30, 2021, 11:43:15 AM
Missing the point a bit but not sure I'd agree with open doors to Poland et al being the maker of Brexit. That proved to be pretty uncontroversial with the UK being in a boom economy with a shortage of workers at the time.

Interesting.

I worked for a small manufacturing company in the 2000s, and that was not the impression one got from British-born workers on the factory floor. They were very unhappy about the influx.

Despite my own political views regarding Europe their attitude used to annoy me. I used to ask them if they'd voted for Blair, which as far as I can recall they all had. So I told them (quite nastily in hindsight) that they had no business complaining as they'd voted in the government that hadn't set limits for up to seven years post-accession unlike most of the other western European countries.

[Surprisingly, perhaps, given my views I also supported the decision not to put restrictions in place for 10 years. We were a part of the EU and restrictions would effectively have declared the citizens of the new Eastern European members to be second-class compared to the citizens of existing members. That would have been dishonorable.]

There was always an anti immigrant minority about of course. But the EU connection with migrants just didn't seem such a big thing then. Complaints about the EU tended to revolve around bendy bananas, being able to weigh things in farthings and whatnot.
Remember 2000 was closer to a time when the UK had net emigration than it is to today. It really was a different time as far as these things went.
UKIP for instance remained devoutly vocally neoliberal and the far right party of the hour was the unashamedly racist BNP.
But then even go back to 2010 and you're looking at a different world with less than 20% of the population giving a shit about the EU either way.It's fascinating to look at yougovs data tracking back to the 2000s about what people care about and how the EU rarely cracks the high teens.
It truly is amazing how all the stars aligned in 2016 and they were able to steal the country out of nowhere.
Sadly there do seem to be efforts in place out there to write over this fact and pretend it was a long struggle and the will of the people and all that flag wavy nonsense.

Quote from: Tyr on November 30, 2021, 06:10:41 PM
There was always an anti immigrant minority about of course. But the EU connection with migrants just didn't seem such a big thing then. Complaints about the EU tended to revolve around bendy bananas, being able to weigh things in farthings and whatnot.
Remember 2000 was closer to a time when the UK had net emigration than it is to today. It really was a different time as far as these things went.

But the EU10 happened in 2004. The bendy banana side of thinigs was the 90s. And the European election after the EU10 in 2009 UKIP were in second place, they came first in 2014.

I think that had a bigger impact than Bulgaria and Romania - partly because we put restrictions on Bulgaria and Romania like the rest of the EU, but also because the scale of immigration from the EU10 was so much higher than government had planned or said and it was the first.

QuoteBut then even go back to 2010 and you're looking at a different world with less than 20% of the population giving a shit about the EU either way.It's fascinating to look at yougovs data tracking back to the 2000s about what people care about and how the EU rarely cracks the high teens.

But again, Farage has explicitly talked about this. The EU10 accession and the failure to prepare or explain it properly and the unexpected scale were key. He has said that it allowed him to link an issue people care about (immigration) with an issue they don't (the EU/sovereignty). So from 2004 immigration is normally one of the top three issues facing the country and it was part of the conversation on Europe.

QuoteIt truly is amazing how all the stars aligned in 2016 and they were able to steal the country out of nowhere.
Sadly there do seem to be efforts in place out there to write over this fact and pretend it was a long struggle and the will of the people and all that flag wavy nonsense.

But it wasn't out of nowhere - there was decades of activism. There had never been a strong almost universal consensus around Europe, in the way there is in most countries, instead it had been a divisive issue for at least one major party at any point in the last 50 years. They did win the referendum and they did win two subsequent elections.

The really contingent bits I think are the Eurozone crisis and the migrant crisis. I think without those the vote is tight but goes the other way - but then imagine the chaos of a Cameron government with a 6 seat majority, Farage in the ascendancy and pushing for more and, say, a massive common EU debt for the coronavirus recovery fund. I'm not convinced that we don't end up in broadly the same place just by a different route.

That's not flag wavy nonsense - those are just the facts of how we got here and Brexit did not come out of nowhere. It was the product of politics and political decisions working for decades across the full spectrum of British politics that got us to now. Frankly it's the lesson re-join campaigners should be learning - they should be going out and buying the Benn diaries and reading Alan Sked and Bob Crow, they should be looking at what Farage and Banks have done (plus any memoirs they publish). Because it didn't happen by accident and we're out now, so that's the status quo and there's no quick way back in (we can't just withdraw the Article 50 letter). So they need to win the argument to rejoin and, because I doubt the rest of the EU will want to restore British privileges, they need to do that on the basis of rejoining the EU in full (no opt-outs, no rebate, signing up to eventually joining the Euro - though see Sweden - and probably signing up to Schengen). They need to be thinking how they build support in parties and with the public, what are issues people care about and how can you link it to re-joining (not, crucially, to why Brexit was wrong) - and I'd be looking at basically pro-European entryism into one of the parties. But from what I've seen they still mainly want to behave like commentators, not campaigners.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 30, 2021, 06:58:12 PM

But the EU10 happened in 2004. The bendy banana side of thinigs was the 90s. And the European election after the EU10 in 2009 UKIP were in second place, they came first in 2014.

I think that had a bigger impact than Bulgaria and Romania - partly because we put restrictions on Bulgaria and Romania like the rest of the EU, but also because the scale of immigration from the EU10 was so much higher than government had planned or said and it was the first.

Which note is once the financial crisis has started to bite, many years after 2004.
For most of the 2000s the EU-hate did tend to revolve around bureaucracy, with the euro briefly popping up and enraging conservatives.

Also worth remembering about Europe is a key reason the Tories were in the political cold during the 2000s and genuinely looked set to fall into 3rd place for a while ( :( ) was their Europe-obsession which just wasn't cutting through with normal people at all.

Quote
But again, Farage has explicitly talked about this. The EU10 accession and the failure to prepare or explain it properly and the unexpected scale were key. He has said that it allowed him to link an issue people care about (immigration) with an issue they don't (the EU/sovereignty). So from 2004 immigration is normally one of the top three issues facing the country and it was part of the conversation on Europe.

Fair point.
But I don't recall them having success with this at the time. It took years for it to come through and it wasn't really until the financial crisis and the need for a scapegoat that it really started seeing progress.

QuoteThey did win the referendum and

With amazingly lucky timing of perfect storm of factors all combining in their favour, lies and underhand methods (including some amazing innovation in the practice of bullshittery), a flawed referendum setup, a terrible remain campaign, promising every version of brexit under the sun, and the flip of a coin..... yes. They 'won' by a wafer thin margin.

Quotethey did win two subsequent elections.

More accurately Corbyn lost them.

Quote
The really contingent bits I think are the Eurozone crisis and the migrant crisis. I think without those the vote is tight but goes the other way - but then imagine the chaos of a Cameron government with a 6 seat majority,

The Eurozone crisis I think could have been better handled. As indeed could have modern Labour's view of Blair and Brown. People are too keen to forget just how dire things nearly got back in the global financial crisis.
The migrant crisis though, yes. Absolutely perfect for the brexit campaign. Still fresh in people's minds despite the worst being over by the time the referendum came. They really fed heavily on the "Turkey is joining so loads of ISIS people are free to move to the UK" nonsense.

QuoteFarage in the ascendancy and pushing for more and, say, a massive common EU debt for the coronavirus recovery fund. I'm not convinced that we don't end up in broadly the same place just by a different route.

Even if brexit is delayed 5 years thats 5 years of school leavers getting a better start in life.
But I do think if the vote had been delayed even up until the current day that the results would have been flipped purely through demographics. 2016 was absolutely the prime time for the leave campaign, at no other time would they have pulled it off.

Quote
That's not flag wavy nonsense - those are just the facts of how we got here and Brexit did not come out of nowhere. It was the product of politics and political decisions working for decades across the full spectrum of British politics that got us to now.

Only in the sense that anything is the result of a myriad of factors over time.
Taking a broad look at the last 30 years and the odds of Britain leaving the EU are tiny. This really was one of those moments of history where everything had to go just wrong in a certain way to give the result we got. Tweak the factors just a little and its unlikely you will get more than 52-48, but very likely you'll get a result the other way.

Quote
Frankly it's the lesson re-join campaigners should be learning - they should be going out and buying the Benn diaries and reading Alan Sked and Bob Crow, they should be looking at what Farage and Banks have done (plus any memoirs they publish). Because it didn't happen by accident and we're out now, so that's the status quo and there's no quick way back in (we can't just withdraw the Article 50 letter). So they need to win the argument to rejoin and, because I doubt the rest of the EU will want to restore British privileges, they need to do that on the basis of rejoining the EU in full (no opt-outs, no rebate, signing up to eventually joining the Euro - though see Sweden - and probably signing up to Schengen). They need to be thinking how they build support in parties and with the public, what are issues people care about and how can you link it to re-joining (not, crucially, to why Brexit was wrong) - and I'd be looking at basically pro-European entryism into one of the parties. But from what I've seen they still mainly want to behave like commentators, not campaigners.

Oh sure. It happened. Its a fait accompli. I don't deny this.
But I will forever continue to reject Orwellian attempts to rewrite history the way they so thoroughly did with the 70s and Thatcher. Sadly it seems modern technology is speeding up the way reality slips from our minds rather than helping to slow it.

I am confident in the mid term that Britain's future is with Europe (if we have a future anyway). The true blue brexit supporters won't live forever. Give it a decade and it'll be like the Iraq war, not many admitting to having supported it.  It will be a difficult and gradual up-hill process that will see the UK in a considerably worse place at the end of the day (both in terms of special privileges in Europe and overall) than if we just hadn't bothered.
Its the short term where I live however and...well. The place is a write-off. Can't be having my son growing up in a country in decline. Hopefully the Hong Kongers are able to insulate themselves from it all!

Quote from: Tyr on December 01, 2021, 05:22:16 AM
Which note is once the financial crisis has started to bite, many years after 2004.
For most of the 2000s the EU-hate did tend to revolve around bureaucracy, with the euro briefly popping up and enraging conservatives.

Also worth remembering about Europe is a key reason the Tories were in the political cold during the 2000s and genuinely looked set to fall into 3rd place for a while ( :( ) was their Europe-obsession which just wasn't cutting through with normal people at all.

Yes - but I think we need to split that in two and there are three key factors that I think shift in the 2000s. One is the financial crisis obviously and moving from Britain as an expanding economy with broadly speaking growing spending on public services. Then there's a shift from Blair to Brown which I think is important - I like Brown a lot but I think Blair was still a better communicator and better at keeping Labour support. The thrid was that I think there was a shift around 2005 from Europe being about Britain joining the Euro ("banging on about Europe") which was never going to happen so looked eccentric v the Lisbon Treaty/referendum politics. I think their Europe-obsession was eccentric and not engaging people when it was in the abstract, I think after Lisbon (perhaps combined with the EU10 accession) that started to shift - and the lack of a referendum, Brown trying to sign it on the quiet etc all contributed to that.

QuoteFair point.
But I don't recall them having success with this at the time. It took years for it to come through and it wasn't really until the financial crisis and the need for a scapegoat that it really started seeing progress.

I don't think anyone blamed immigratns for the crash and the Tories were seen as better on immigration than Labour in the 2005 election - people already preferred the Tory line on that. What happened that was important in the crash was that Labour's economic credibility plummeted and has still not recovered. Eleven years on, with national debt at the highest level in decades (which I'm comfortable about in general) the Tories are still perceived as better at managing the economy and better at managing budget.

I don't think that's the only thing that matters or is relevant, but I think it's essential for Labour to win to clawback trust on the economy - and that's a post-war cycle of Labour governments losing power and being discredited in economic crisis, while the Tories' reputation generally seems to survive their recessions and Sterling crises etc.

QuoteWith amazingly lucky timing of perfect storm of factors all combining in their favour, lies and underhand methods (including some amazing innovation in the practice of bullshittery), a flawed referendum setup, a terrible remain campaign, promising every version of brexit under the sun, and the flip of a coin..... yes. They 'won' by a wafer thin margin.
[...]
More accurately Corbyn lost them.

They won. They didn't cheat. And none of the rest matters. It's like complaining that x team didn't face a real challenge - you can only win the campaigns that you face in the context you face them.

And you can put this other way round. The Remain campaign ran through and had a direct line to Number 10 - so they were in a position to shape the context far more than the Leave campaign. They discussed and were consulted on the date of the referendum, they had institutional support from government with the Treasury especially out there tarnishing their reputation, they were backed by the leaders of all three parties, various respected organisations and international leaders like Obama etc. If we're talking about underhand methods I think the Remain campaign leveraged their access to power in a way that would be utterly unacceptable in a general election. On lies and bullshit all of the economic projections/warnings by George Osborne (Project Fear) were based on the UK leaving the EU the day after a referendum without a deal, which was never going to happend and has undermined economic cricism of Brexit ever since. If we're talking about the advantages one side or other had, you would definitely choose the Remain side.

And on Corbyn - sure but again you can only beat the opponent you're facing. The other side of that is that Labour lost in a campaign where the other side imploded over a "dementia tax" and lost against Boris Johnson with all of his known flaws. There was a leadership challenge in 2016 and given the choice between focusing on Brexit or having Corbyn, the Labour party members overwhelmingly decided that having Corbyn as leader was their priority.

QuoteEven if brexit is delayed 5 years thats 5 years of school leavers getting a better start in life.
But I do think if the vote had been delayed even up until the current day that the results would have been flipped purely through demographics. 2016 was absolutely the prime time for the leave campaign, at no other time would they have pulled it off.

Yeah I don't buy the demographics argument on this - or any other political issue ever. The other side of it is that we are an ageing population so in the last five years the proportion of over 65s has basically gone up by a percentage point.

The flipping point in age in the Brexit vote (and the 2017 election) was about 45 - I don't think that would just automatically move up to 50. I think it would probably still be about 45.

QuoteOnly in the sense that anything is the result of a myriad of factors over time.
Taking a broad look at the last 30 years and the odds of Britain leaving the EU are tiny. This really was one of those moments of history where everything had to go just wrong in a certain way to give the result we got. Tweak the factors just a little and its unlikely you will get more than 52-48, but very likely you'll get a result the other way.

Maybe - but I think looking across the UK's membership it feels like the odds are higher than for any other European country. We had a referendum in 1975. We had a Labour Party committed to withdrawing through the first half of the 80s and generally Labour support for another referendum in the late 80s.

The 90s is relatively peaceful (even if it's causing chaos within the Tory government), but by 2004 UKIP are winning over 15% of the vote in European election and it only increases after that.

QuoteI am confident in the mid term that Britain's future is with Europe (if we have a future anyway). The true blue brexit supporters won't live forever. Give it a decade and it'll be like the Iraq war, not many admitting to having supported it.  It will be a difficult and gradual up-hill process that will see the UK in a considerably worse place at the end of the day (both in terms of special privileges in Europe and overall) than if we just hadn't bothered.

You might be right. But I don't think it'll just happen - I think it's as big a political project as leaving the EU was.

I think you might be right that no-one admits supporting Brexit, but I don't think that necessarily means that all those people will want another referendum with all of the divisive/polarising things that come with a referendum, or that they will want to re-join the EU. I think it's more likely that most people will settle into thinking it was a mistake, but accepting the status quo. Re-joining is going to be change campaign, up-ending the status quo especially after, at the very least, a decade of divergence. And that's always a challenge - it's why they should be looking at and learning from the Eurosceptics who faced a similar challenge.

QuoteIts the short term where I live however and...well. The place is a write-off. Can't be having my son growing up in a country in decline. Hopefully the Hong Kongers are able to insulate themselves from it all!

Well - see what I said about Brits on left and right not understanding how anyone coule possibly want to live in the UK :lol:

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2021, 07:23:36 AM
Yes - but I think we need to split that in two and there are three key factors that I think shift in the 2000s. One is the financial crisis obviously and moving from Britain as an expanding economy with broadly speaking growing spending on public services. Then there's a shift from Blair to Brown which I think is important - I like Brown a lot but I think Blair was still a better communicator and better at keeping Labour support. The thrid was that I think there was a shift around 2005 from Europe being about Britain joining the Euro ("banging on about Europe") which was never going to happen so looked eccentric v the Lisbon Treaty/referendum politics. I think their Europe-obsession was eccentric and not engaging people when it was in the abstract, I think after Lisbon (perhaps combined with the EU10 accession) that started to shift - and the lack of a referendum, Brown trying to sign it on the quiet etc all contributed to that.

It is interesting how conspiracy theories started to break through a lot at that time. The whole myth of Ireland being forced to have two referenda, that Lisbon meant the UK wouldn't be a free country and would have to A, B,C , etc....

Quote
I don't think anyone blamed immigratns for the crash and the Tories were seen as better on immigration than Labour in the 2005 election - people already preferred the Tory line on that. What happened that was important in the crash was that Labour's economic credibility plummeted and has still not recovered. Eleven years on, with national debt at the highest level in decades (which I'm comfortable about in general) the Tories are still perceived as better at managing the economy and better at managing budget.

I don't think that's the only thing that matters or is relevant, but I think it's essential for Labour to win to clawback trust on the economy - and that's a post-war cycle of Labour governments losing power and being discredited in economic crisis, while the Tories' reputation generally seems to survive their recessions and Sterling crises etc.

I wouldn't be so certain. Immigrants to blame for the crash...no. But Labour and the EU certainly do get blamed for it. A lot of people have a very small world view where they can barely see beyond their town. That this was a global problem just doesn't.
Labour's economic credibility falling out of this is a key example. They stopped the country from collapsing and set the UK up to be one of the best recovering countries in Europe...but no. History has been rewritten. Labour over-spent and pushed the country into debt so austerity absolutely had to happen and thats what caused the crash.
Immigrants, and Europe, do get roped into this a bit through innumeracy. That a big part of the over spending was due to needing to pay for immigrants and that EU contributions are absolutely huge and definitely made the difference in sending us into debt.

And yep. Its the standard cycle of UK politics. Labour builds a better country and genuinely inches things forward, then a global crisis emerges, the Tories swoop in blaming that crisis entirely on Labour and presenting the image that Labour are the ones who are bad with finances whilst they trash the country.

QuoteWith amazingly lucky timing of perfect storm of factors all combining in their favour, lies and underhand methods (including some amazing innovation in the practice of bullshittery), a flawed referendum setup, a terrible remain campaign, promising every version of brexit under the sun, and the flip of a coin..... yes. They 'won' by a wafer thin margin.
[...]
More accurately Corbyn lost them.

They won. They didn't cheat. And none of the rest matters. It's like complaining that x team didn't face a real challenge - you can only win the campaigns that you face in the context you face them. [/quote]
They won a referendum which should never have happened the way it did and they certainly did 'cheat'.
There's been active efforts to avoid coming up with any evidence for what might legally get them in trouble over this (which wouldn't amount to much) but Cambridge analytica and all that sort of thing... it really has to be made illegal going forward.

As to none of it matters...well see how history was rewritten about Thatcher and the 70s. Who controls the past controls the future.

Quote
And you can put this other way round. The Remain campaign ran through and had a direct line to Number 10 - so they were in a position to shape the context far more than the Leave campaign. They discussed and were consulted on the date of the referendum, they had institutional support from government with the Treasury especially out there tarnishing their reputation, they were backed by the leaders of all three parties, various respected organisations and international leaders like Obama etc. If we're talking about underhand methods I think the Remain campaign leveraged their access to power in a way that would be utterly unacceptable in a general election. On lies and bullshit all of the economic projections/warnings by George Osborne (Project Fear) were based on the UK leaving the EU the day after a referendum without a deal, which was never going to happend and has undermined economic cricism of Brexit ever since. If we're talking about the advantages one side or other had, you would definitely choose the Remain side.

The government had the opportunity to fix things in remain's favour but they didn't take it, unlike in the AV referendum.
In a way all these paper advantages that were ill-utilised only served to further the advantages of the leave side. They allowed this most establishment of movements to present itself as the plucky underdog rebels against the big bad evil establishment at a time when trust in government and politics was at an absolute low.

Quote
And on Corbyn - sure but again you can only beat the opponent you're facing. The other side of that is that Labour lost in a campaign where the other side imploded over a "dementia tax" and lost against Boris Johnson with all of his known flaws. There was a leadership challenge in 2016 and given the choice between focusing on Brexit or having Corbyn, the Labour party members overwhelmingly decided that having Corbyn as leader was their priority.

Sure. Labour have been awful.
But many are keen to present general elections as a solid remain vs. leave rerun where leave won. Nothing backs this up. By 2019 far more than people supporting brexit far more of an issue was people being sick to death of it and just wanting it 'over'.

Quote
Yeah I don't buy the demographics argument on this - or any other political issue ever. The other side of it is that we are an ageing population so in the last five years the proportion of over 65s has basically gone up by a percentage point.

The flipping point in age in the Brexit vote (and the 2017 election) was about 45 - I don't think that would just automatically move up to 50. I think it would probably still be about 45.

The demographics are VERY relevant in this.
I posted in the other thread a while ago the demographics from the referendum in the 70s- its remarkable how you have these same people running through to voting the same way today.
Its true as time goes on we would lose more of the generation who remember the war, replacing them instead with boomers, but the maths add up that the losses here would be made up for by new voters who grew up in a world where Europe is at peace and freedom of movement is a fact of life.
I don't see many as they creep beyond 45 suddenly deciding they want to go back to the 1960s.

Whether this now holds true moving into the future as the default is brekshit is a different matter of course, lots of different factors at play. But I would put all my money on an alternative 2021 referendum having had flipped results.

Quote
Maybe - but I think looking across the UK's membership it feels like the odds are higher than for any other European country. We had a referendum in 1975. We had a Labour Party committed to withdrawing through the first half of the 80s and generally Labour support for another referendum in the late 80s.

The 90s is relatively peaceful (even if it's causing chaos within the Tory government), but by 2004 UKIP are winning over 15% of the vote in European election and it only increases after that.

Trueish.
Though I'd argue thats less because we're especially euroskeptic and more because we're particularly undemocratic, rarely giving people much of a voice thus making referenda excellent occasions for rebellion, and uneducated on European matters.
Austria stands out as far more euroskeptic for instance... but not dumb enough to cut off their legs in the way we did.

QuoteI am confident in the mid term that Britain's future is with Europe (if we have a future anyway). The true blue brexit supporters won't live forever. Give it a decade and it'll be like the Iraq war, not many admitting to having supported it.  It will be a difficult and gradual up-hill process that will see the UK in a considerably worse place at the end of the day (both in terms of special privileges in Europe and overall) than if we just hadn't bothered.

You might be right. But I don't think it'll just happen - I think it's as big a political project as leaving the EU was.

Quote
I think you might be right that no-one admits supporting Brexit, but I don't think that necessarily means that all those people will want another referendum with all of the divisive/polarising things that come with a referendum, or that they will want to re-join the EU. I think it's more likely that most people will settle into thinking it was a mistake, but accepting the status quo. Re-joining is going to be change campaign, up-ending the status quo especially after, at the very least, a decade of divergence. And that's always a challenge - it's why they should be looking at and learning from the Eurosceptics who faced a similar challenge.

Hopefully it won't take another referendum to get a sane brexit that actually reflects the results of the referendum in place. Beyond that full membership.... I actually don't see Britain rejoining the EU as we know it and rather a new arrangement in Europe being worked out which Britain is a part of.
Big fingers crossed we'll be a democracy by this point too.

Quote
Well - see what I said about Brits on left and right not understanding how anyone coule possibly want to live in the UK :lol:

Well, put the UK against a Chinese labour camp and we may just about be the winner. Italy maybe? But they've got the food....
Compared to any other first world democracy though.... hard to think of many with worse prospects at the moment.
I have heard tell (not just from Mono) that this attitude is reflected in HK too with many there seeing the UK as the inferior option if they have the choice, with Australia or Canada being preferred.

Quote from: Tyr on December 01, 2021, 08:36:52 AM
It is interesting how conspiracy theories started to break through a lot at that time. The whole myth of Ireland being forced to have two referenda, that Lisbon meant the UK wouldn't be a free country and would have to A, B,C , etc....

Ireland did have two referendums for the Lisbon Treaty.

QuoteI wouldn't be so certain. Immigrants to blame for the crash...no. But Labour and the EU certainly do get blamed for it. A lot of people have a very small world view where they can barely see beyond their town. That this was a global problem just doesn't.
Labour's economic credibility falling out of this is a key example. They stopped the country from collapsing and set the UK up to be one of the best recovering countries in Europe...but no. History has been rewritten. Labour over-spent and pushed the country into debt so austerity absolutely had to happen and thats what caused the crash.

History hasn't been re-written. I think history is generally very kind to Gordon Brown and Darling. Whatever book you read about the global financial crisis they come out of it pretty well.

But that's different than the politics at the time. I think Cameron and Osborne (and Clegg) were better at shaping perceptions around that - the whole "didn't fix the roof while the sun was shining" line. But I think in the same way as there is a global financial crisis I think there was also a global to how the discourse shifted. So by 2010 you have the IMF pushing austerity, you have the start of the Eurozone crisis (solution: austerity), you have the rise of the Tea Party and Scott Brown taking Kennedy's old seat, you have establishment media like the Economist and the FT pushing austerity as necessary and you have central banks starting to worry about QE - both the BofE and the ECB wobbled a bit. I think the global discourse has shifted on this and Ed Balls' attempt to push a limited defence of Brown's time in office during 2010-15 is now consensus.

I think all of those institutions would now admit they got it wrong and have shifted quite significantly and I don't think the politics would be the same now. And that's why Brown and Darling get a good write-up now - maybe if inflation keeps spiking and the central banks have to cut QE and raise interest rates and there's widespread negative equity again etc then Cameron and Osborne will get a better review.

QuoteImmigrants, and Europe, do get roped into this a bit through innumeracy. That a big part of the over spending was due to needing to pay for immigrants and that EU contributions are absolutely huge and definitely made the difference in sending us into debt.

I've never heard a link of immigration or Europe to the debt. Just that it costs too much generally.

QuoteAnd yep. Its the standard cycle of UK politics. Labour builds a better country and genuinely inches things forward, then a global crisis emerges, the Tories swoop in blaming that crisis entirely on Labour and presenting the image that Labour are the ones who are bad with finances whilst they trash the country.

Ish. I think the 1949 Sterling Crisis, the late 60s balance of payments issues and the winter of discontent are pretty specifically British :P

But it's right Labour tends to lose power when its economic credibility goes, the Tories tend to lose power when the government looks tired and worn down by scandal (Profumo, sleaze in the 90s - sleaze in the 2010s?).

QuoteThey won a referendum which should never have happened the way it did and they certainly did 'cheat'.
There's been active efforts to avoid coming up with any evidence for what might legally get them in trouble over this (which wouldn't amount to much) but Cambridge analytica and all that sort of thing... it really has to be made illegal going forward.

The ICO did a huge investigation into Cambridge Analytica - gave the maximum fine and punishments they could because it massively misused people's data. What it couldn't find - and no-one has - is any evidence that CA actually was doing what it said it was doing in its marketing bumph, or that it was in practical terms any different from any data-based advertising company.

As I say I've not seen anything from the Brexit campaign that I wouldn't consider relatively standard in a political campaign.

QuoteAs to none of it matters...well see how history was rewritten about Thatcher and the 70s. Who controls the past controls the future.

I agree but that's why we disagree on these points. My view if your analysis is the 70s was great and it's a shame Thatcher came along to destroy it all, or Brexit came out of a clear blue sky and they won because they cheated - then your analysis is wrong and you're going to lose the next fight too. I think that is a big part of why it took Labour 18 years to beat the Tories after 79 and it's taking them at least 13 years, if not 17-18 to beat the Tories this time. The left prefers comforting myths to confronting why they lost and what they need to do to win again.

QuoteThe government had the opportunity to fix things in remain's favour but they didn't take it, unlike in the AV referendum.

What did they do in the AV referendum that they didn't here?

QuoteSure. Labour have been awful.
But many are keen to present general elections as a solid remain vs. leave rerun where leave won. Nothing backs this up. By 2019 far more than people supporting brexit far more of an issue was people being sick to death of it and just wanting it 'over'.

Absolutely - I don't disagree with that. But 85% of people in 2017 voted for parties committing to end free movement which means hard Brexit and there was a pretty clear choice in 2019 too. What backs it up is the government we have on the best conservative vote in decades. It wasn't leave v remain because remain didn't consolidate they splintered across multiple parties, multiple strategies, multiple movements - so they lost, again.

QuoteThe demographics are VERY relevant in this.
I posted in the other thread a while ago the demographics from the referendum in the 70s- its remarkable how you have these same people running through to voting the same way today.
Its true as time goes on we would lose more of the generation who remember the war, replacing them instead with boomers, but the maths add up that the losses here would be made up for by new voters who grew up in a world where Europe is at peace and freedom of movement is a fact of life.
I don't see many as they creep beyond 45 suddenly deciding they want to go back to the 1960s.

I think people's votes change as they get older. Labour have always won the youth vote and those same people end up voting Tory as they get older (acquire capital - plus cultural shifts). I'm not sure that wouldn't happen with the Brexit vote too. My suspicion is that at least part of the age split is because Brexit was synecdoche for Tory and the young are anti-Tory, not any considered position.

Because you're right most people didn't care about the EU but that goes both ways - people have only become passionately pro-EU since 2016. I think the same indifference on one side and passion on the other would play out in broadly the same way.

QuoteWhether this now holds true moving into the future as the default is brekshit is a different matter of course, lots of different factors at play. But I would put all my money on an alternative 2021 referendum having had flipped results.

I don't - I think the politics of a common €750 billion covid recovery fund would mean we'd either already blown up the EU or, my guess would be, Leave win by a bigger margin. There is no way I see Remain winning in that context.

QuoteHopefully it won't take another referendum to get a sane brexit that actually reflects the results of the referendum in place. Beyond that full membership.... I actually don't see Britain rejoining the EU as we know it and rather a new arrangement in Europe being worked out which Britain is a part of.
Big fingers crossed we'll be a democracy by this point too.

It depends what you mean by sane Brexit - I think Starmer's position on this is right "make Brexit work" a fixit v wrexit positioning plus it goes with his competence pitch and the developing "I prosecuted corrupt MPs, he's trying to save their jobs" line.

But if sane Brexit involves single market by joining the EEA - and free movement again (which Labour have ruled) I think that would require a new referendum.

I doubt there'll be a bespoke solution. I don't think the EU wants that for very good reasons. I hope aside from the UK that the EU does consider alternatives to the relationship via membership/accession model and works on some other models for its neigbourhood of countries who are not going to join any time soon.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 01, 2021, 02:04:39 PM

Ireland did have two referendums for the Lisbon Treaty.

Which isn't a bad thing in itself.
Theres two versions of this story, the reality, and the one the brexit brigade has loads of people believing.
Real- Ireland had some qualms about Lisbon so rejected it and told the EU to change those bits which the EU did. Ireland then voted on the reformed treaty and said OK.
Brexit- Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The EU pulled some kind of nasty gangster "Are you really sure you want to do that? VOTE AGAIN UNTIL YOU GET THE RIGHT ANSWER" thing and Ireland was forced to accept it.

Quote
History hasn't been re-written. I think history is generally very kind to Gordon Brown and Darling. Whatever book you read about the global financial crisis they come out of it pretty well.

There's your mistake there, reading actual books written by people who presumably have a clue what they're talking about. :p
I'm referring to the popular history that the man on the streets believe- that the financial crash was all Labour's doing and Brown wrecked the country.

Quote
I've never heard a link of immigration or Europe to the debt. Just that it costs too much generally.

Interesting. I really do see this one all the time- every single problem we have in the country is due to too many immigrants.
A lot of people out there seem to have a mercantilist view of the economy as a closed system which can never grow and the more people you have the more resources must be spread.

Quote
Ish. I think the 1949 Sterling Crisis, the late 60s balance of payments issues and the winter of discontent are pretty specifically British :P

I was very much thinking of the winter of discontent in this and I'd disagree that was a British problem. Rather that was the key symptom that showed up in the UK of the global problems of the fallout from the Yom Kippur War and the end of Bretton Woods.

Quote
The ICO did a huge investigation into Cambridge Analytica - gave the maximum fine and punishments they could because it massively misused people's data. What it couldn't find - and no-one has - is any evidence that CA actually was doing what it said it was doing in its marketing bumph, or that it was in practical terms any different from any data-based advertising company.

As I say I've not seen anything from the Brexit campaign that I wouldn't consider relatively standard in a political campaign.

When you're dealing with such a binary life or death issue this stuff is far more effective than in actual grown up politics.
Thats exactly the problem here though, that they found problems and levelled the maximum fine. There was also all the stuff with the leave campaign shifting funds around fake groups to get around spending limits....they were more than happy to swallow the fine.
The brexit campaign really showed quite how absolutely fucked the concept of democracy is in the UK.

QuoteA
I agree but that's why we disagree on these points. My view if your analysis is the 70s was great and it's a shame Thatcher came along to destroy it all, or Brexit came out of a clear blue sky and they won because they cheated - then your analysis is wrong and you're going to lose the next fight too. I think that is a big part of why it took Labour 18 years to beat the Tories after 79 and it's taking them at least 13 years, if not 17-18 to beat the Tories this time. The left prefers comforting myths to confronting why they lost and what they need to do to win again.

No. The 70s weren't great.
However this was a problem afflicting other countries as well. Things weren't so dire in the UK as presented nor was the source of the problem the unions.
Brexit came out of nowhere and they only won because they're lying shit bag con artists who pulled out every scam in the book and got massively lucky. I will never change my mind on this. It's important to remember quite how marginal the victory was. Well within the margin of error. The slightest of things could tweak the outcome and as it ended up it was on the extreme right of the margin.
That they tapped into pre-existing problems et al is definitely the case. They succesfully were able to tie the concept of victory in this referendum to a myriad of unrelated lovely things. These are indeed tactics to learn from. But this doesn't change that brexit itself was a complete fluke and its depressing to think that if only a decent politician had been around who could have tied these problems to their better match in the remain side....

Quote
What did they do in the AV referendum that they didn't here?

Hired the brexit campaign's people to indulge in the same sort of non-sequiturs and claiming general discontent and hate for their side.

Quote
Absolutely - I don't disagree with that. But 85% of people in 2017 voted for parties committing to end free movement which means hard Brexit and there was a pretty clear choice in 2019 too.

I don't agree with this in the slightest.
Most political parties support nuclear power for instance. But go ask around about it as an individual issue and you'd find far more split numbers.
I also wouldn't agree labour were for hard brexit in 2017. Soft brexit was their goal.

Quote
What backs it up is the government we have on the best conservative vote in decades. It wasn't leave v remain because remain didn't consolidate they splintered across multiple parties, multiple strategies, multiple movements - so they lost, again.

It wasn't leave vs remain because remain wasn't even a side in the election outside of the lib dems. Brexit just isn't an issue most people cared about and they were sick of it.

Quote
I think people's votes change as they get older. Labour have always won the youth vote and those same people end up voting Tory as they get older (acquire capital - plus cultural shifts). I'm not sure that wouldn't happen with the Brexit vote too. My suspicion is that at least part of the age split is because Brexit was synecdoche for Tory and the young are anti-Tory, not any considered position.

As I say though look at the 70s data compared to 2016. People didn't change. They just got older.
I have never really agreed with the old the elderly flip to conservative thing. Its more the centre moves leftwards. Yesterdays moderate communist is far more likely todays centrist dad than todays UKIPper (though between the extremes flippers are more common. Kind of shows its not about the politics there so much as mental health).

Quote
Because you're right most people didn't care about the EU but that goes both ways - people have only become passionately pro-EU since 2016. I think the same indifference on one side and passion on the other would play out in broadly the same way.

Yes, that will be a challenge. Which is why a move towards a soft brexit should be done without a referendum. We elect MPs precisely to make this sort of decision about whats best for the country.

Quote
It depends what you mean by sane Brexit - I think Starmer's position on this is right "make Brexit work" a fixit v wrexit positioning plus it goes with his competence pitch and the developing "I prosecuted corrupt MPs, he's trying to save their jobs" line.

But if sane Brexit involves single market by joining the EEA - and free movement again (which Labour have ruled) I think that would require a new referendum.

Why?
That would be fully consistant with the first referendum. Even if you totally disregard the remain vote. Looking at the first referendum fairly and bringing everyone into mind there is no way hard brexit was ever remotely the mandate.

Quote
I doubt there'll be a bespoke solution. I don't think the EU wants that for very good reasons. I hope aside from the UK that the EU does consider alternatives to the relationship via membership/accession model and works on some other models for its neigbourhood of countries who are not going to join any time soon.

I don't mean a bespoke solution just for Britain.
I mean the entire EU needs reform.
I can see by the middle of the century the EU is gone and replaced with some sort of Neo-EU (hopefully named in a way that non Europeans can join?) with better rules about democracy and rule of law to stop stuff like Hungary and Poland's hijinks and other problems, ala League of Nations/UN.

Quote from: Tyr on December 02, 2021, 05:52:26 AM
Which isn't a bad thing in itself.
Theres two versions of this story, the reality, and the one the brexit brigade has loads of people believing.
Real- Ireland had some qualms about Lisbon so rejected it and told the EU to change those bits which the EU did. Ireland then voted on the reformed treaty and said OK.
Brexit- Ireland rejected the Lisbon Treaty. The EU pulled some kind of nasty gangster "Are you really sure you want to do that? VOTE AGAIN UNTIL YOU GET THE RIGHT ANSWER" thing and Ireland was forced to accept it.

There's not a wild amount of difference between the two. It's also a rare example of Sinn Fein and Brexiter convergence because the Brexit line is exactly what the Irish "no" campaign was saying.

QuoteThere's your mistake there, reading actual books written by people who presumably have a clue what they're talking about. :p
I'm referring to the popular history that the man on the streets believe- that the financial crash was all Labour's doing and Brown wrecked the country.

That's fair - I think that myth still is out there.

QuoteInteresting. I really do see this one all the time- every single problem we have in the country is due to too many immigrants.
A lot of people out there seem to have a mercantilist view of the economy as a closed system which can never grow and the more people you have the more resources must be spread.

Yeah I think there's stuff pressure on services and "look after your own first". But I've never seen a link to debt or to the financial crisis and the economy collapsing.

QuoteI was very much thinking of the winter of discontent in this and I'd disagree that was a British problem. Rather that was the key symptom that showed up in the UK of the global problems of the fallout from the Yom Kippur War and the end of Bretton Woods.

I think you're wrong on that. Yom Kippur, the oil embargo and Bretton Woods were all early 70s, around 1973. The winter of discontent was later and a bespoke British crisis :lol:

QuoteThats exactly the problem here though, that they found problems and levelled the maximum fine. There was also all the stuff with the leave campaign shifting funds around fake groups to get around spending limits....they were more than happy to swallow the fine.

Again the Court of Appeal largely overruled a lot of those findings and said the Electoral Commission had got the law wrong.

QuoteNo. The 70s weren't great.
However this was a problem afflicting other countries as well. Things weren't so dire in the UK as presented nor was the source of the problem the unions.

I think the unions were a problem. It's why Barbara Castle tried to reform them in the late 60s - unfortunately she was beaten by internal Labour politics and especially Jim Callaghan. I always think that's the Sliding Doors moment of British politics, because industrial relations aren't reformed they keep spinning through the 70s and you end up with Thatcher breaking them utterly.

QuoteBrexit came out of nowhere and they only won because they're lying shit bag con artists who pulled out every scam in the book and got massively lucky. I will never change my mind on this. It's important to remember quite how marginal the victory was. Well within the margin of error. The slightest of things could tweak the outcome and as it ended up it was on the extreme right of the margin.
That they tapped into pre-existing problems et al is definitely the case. They succesfully were able to tie the concept of victory in this referendum to a myriad of unrelated lovely things. These are indeed tactics to learn from. But this doesn't change that brexit itself was a complete fluke and its depressing to think that if only a decent politician had been around who could have tied these problems to their better match in the remain side....

Yeah I just disagree. I think it was the result of long term trends in our politics, economy and society. I don't think it was inevitable, but it wasn't a fluke and it wasn't down to the evil genius of Dom Cummings or Boris Johnson's shamelessness.

QuoteHired the brexit campaign's people to indulge in the same sort of non-sequiturs and claiming general discontent and hate for their side.

I don't remember the AV campaign being that passionate on either side :lol: The stuff of it costing too much money is maybe a non-sequitur but not untrue, it would cost more. I think attacking the Lib Dems/Clegg as always in government despite never winning an election is fair game.

Plus, again, the AV campaign just never thought through what their pitch or argument was (and it's difficult because AV doesn't seem intrinsically fairer than FPTP, unlike PR).

QuoteI don't agree with this in the slightest.
Most political parties support nuclear power for instance. But go ask around about it as an individual issue and you'd find far more split numbers.
I also wouldn't agree labour were for hard brexit in 2017. Soft brexit was their goal.

In 2017 Labour said they wanted Brexit with no free movement - that means hard Brexit. I think it's entirely right to say their goal was cakeism (and might still be), but that's not a serious policy. The consequence of their commitment to say no free movement would be hard Brexit, they just wouldn't admit it and still struggle with that reality.

QuoteIt wasn't leave vs remain because remain wasn't even a side in the election outside of the lib dems. Brexit just isn't an issue most people cared about and they were sick of it.

It was the number one issue in the 2019 election - 70% of people said it was the most important issue. I agree that reflected a lot of exhaustion and just wanting to move on, but we can't pretend it wasn't the big factor in the election.

QuoteAs I say though look at the 70s data compared to 2016. People didn't change. They just got older.

I don't know that I agree with that take. In 1975  the pro-leave group was young, left-wing, Labour voters (and more strong in Scotland than England). I don't think those people necessarily aged into the Leave voters of 2016 - they may actually have been voting Remain, for independence and the SNP :lol: Plus even though that was the most anti-stay group in 1975 they still voted to stay by 62% so there was still some swing over the next 50 years as that group became over 60% Leavers by 2016.

I think it is a feature of the anti-EEC politics being mainly a thing on the left in the 70s - so groups that are more likely to vote left (young, Scottish, Labour supporting) were less likely to vote to stay. In 2016 it was more of a thing on the right (though not exclusively) so groups who were more likely to vote right (old, English and Welsh, Tory supporting) voted leave.

QuoteI have never really agreed with the old the elderly flip to conservative thing. Its more the centre moves leftwards. Yesterdays moderate communist is far more likely todays centrist dad than todays UKIPper (though between the extremes flippers are more common. Kind of shows its not about the politics there so much as mental health).

I don't really think it's about politics. I think as you age you acquire assets and capital, often you become more tied to a specific community/location - and for now the Tories are the party of assets and (rentier) capital and the more "settled". I don't think it's that people's opinions change but that their life circumstances do in ways that make them more likely to vote for the right. And you tend to, I suppose, pick things up and vote similarly to your group on other issues.

QuoteYes, that will be a challenge. Which is why a move towards a soft brexit should be done without a referendum. We elect MPs precisely to make this sort of decision about whats best for the country.
[...]
Why?
That would be fully consistant with the first referendum. Even if you totally disregard the remain vote. Looking at the first referendum fairly and bringing everyone into mind there is no way hard brexit was ever remotely the mandate.

But I think this requires us to pretend that the 2016 wasn't about immigration, which doesn't work. Maybe in 2040 things will look different because we'll be sufficiently distant but I think when there was a referendum that was primarily about immigration, you can't reinstate free movement (and cede some sovereignty/law-making power) without going back to the people and making that case.

QuoteI don't mean a bespoke solution just for Britain.
I mean the entire EU needs reform.
I can see by the middle of the century the EU is gone and replaced with some sort of Neo-EU (hopefully named in a way that non Europeans can join?) with better rules about democracy and rule of law to stop stuff like Hungary and Poland's hijinks and other problems, ala League of Nations/UN.

I'm nowhere near as positive on that side of things - and I don't think I've ever seen the League of Nations or UN cited as an aspiration :lol:

Was just reading the Economist piece on some polling of Hong Kongers with BN(O) status - which I thought all sounded very positive. But puts into scale that this is now one of the most imporant current immigrant groups. Apparently 90,000 Hong Kongers have applied in the first 9 months of the year while in the same period there's been about 190,000 work visas.

Work is normally the largest immigration category but that puts Hong Kongers going through BN(O) at about the same numbers as family members/people applying to join residents in the UK.

Quote from: Sheilbh on December 02, 2021, 08:57:14 PM

There's not a wild amount of difference between the two. It's also a rare example of Sinn Fein and Brexiter convergence because the Brexit line is exactly what the Irish "no" campaign was saying.

I think there's a huge difference.
One is how negotiations are meant to work- say no to the first offer and get a new offer with compromises to meet your concerns.
The other is the evil undemocratic EU mafia state nonsense.

QuoteI
I think you're wrong on that. Yom Kippur, the oil embargo and Bretton Woods were all early 70s, around 1973. The winter of discontent was later and a bespoke British crisis :lol:

I would still argue that though there was the stream of ongoing union reforms et al that was British things would not have blown up so much were it not for the economic collapse of the early 70s, the battle against inflation, etc.... just as today we are still feeling 2008's fallout.

Quote
Again the Court of Appeal largely overruled a lot of those findings and said the Electoral Commission had got the law wrong.

It has also been stated that it is clear laws were broken.
More not proven than innocent.

Quote
I think the unions were a problem. It's why Barbara Castle tried to reform them in the late 60s - unfortunately she was beaten by internal Labour politics and especially Jim Callaghan. I always think that's the Sliding Doors moment of British politics, because industrial relations aren't reformed they keep spinning through the 70s and you end up with Thatcher breaking them utterly.

There were problems with the unions. But they weren't THE problem.
Ultimately it was bad timing with things coming to this critical period of change being needed on union law right as the global financial crisis kicked Britain particularly hard.
Its all interlinked and I really don't think the Yom Kippur/BW aspect gets the attention it deserves as the core of the problem with the simple version just being "It was the unions that ruined Britain".

Quote
Yeah I just disagree. I think it was the result of long term trends in our politics, economy and society. I don't think it was inevitable, but it wasn't a fluke and it wasn't down to the evil genius of Dom Cummings or Boris Johnson's shamelessness.

And you think these long term trends were Brexit related?
That the north finally woke up to regional inequality being a massive problem was the fault of the EU?- the organisation that recognises and seeks to fix this as one of its key goals - rather than skillfull campaigning in figuring out what people care about and then attaching arguments about that to an unrelated issue?

Quote
I don't remember the AV campaign being that passionate on either side :lol: The stuff of it costing too much money is maybe a non-sequitur but not untrue, it would cost more. I think attacking the Lib Dems/Clegg as always in government despite never winning an election is fair game.

Plus, again, the AV campaign just never thought through what their pitch or argument was (and it's difficult because AV doesn't seem intrinsically fairer than FPTP, unlike PR).

The lack of particular pro AV fashion perhaps diluted it but look at the campaigning of the anti side and theres huge parallels with the sort of thing the brexit campaign got up to.

Quote
In 2017 Labour said they wanted Brexit with no free movement - that means hard Brexit. I think it's entirely right to say their goal was cakeism (and might still be), but that's not a serious policy. The consequence of their commitment to say no free movement would be hard Brexit, they just wouldn't admit it and still struggle with that reality.

Just checked up.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf
It sounds like a soft brexit to me. Primary goal is retaining the advantages of the single market and customs union. It seemed to me a Swiss sort of setup was where they were going.

Quote
It was the number one issue in the 2019 election - 70% of people said it was the most important issue. I agree that reflected a lot of exhaustion and just wanting to move on, but we can't pretend it wasn't the big factor in the election.

Phrased as Britain leaving the EU it was marked as an important issue. Not Leave vs. Remain.

QuoteY#
But I think this requires us to pretend that the 2016 wasn't about immigration, which doesn't work. Maybe in 2040 things will look different because we'll be sufficiently distant but I think when there was a referendum that was primarily about immigration, you can't reinstate free movement (and cede some sovereignty/law-making power) without going back to the people and making that case.

The brexiters themselves are succesfully able to flip the it was/wasn't about immigration switch almost at whim. Doesn't the primary official version remain that it was about sovereignty?

When a referendum was a narrow win for one side which they used as an excuse to absolute savage the country then I really don't think it takes another referendum to set things back to a state that reflects the results of the referendum. 52-48 is clearly a call for soft brexit.

Plus I'd rather just have a democratic UK and then no more referenda ever (well, OK, if somewhere wants independence they can do it). With a democratic country and the fascists taking their seats in parliament then the paint drinkers can't argue they weren't listened to.

Quote from: Tyr on December 04, 2021, 05:10:47 AMI think there's a huge difference.
One is how negotiations are meant to work- say no to the first offer and get a new offer with compromises to meet your concerns.
The other is the evil undemocratic EU mafia state nonsense.

But the practical effect is the same - multiple votes on the same treaty until you agree. The only change to the treaty was the removal of the commitment to shrink the number of Commissioners (which isn't great). Otherwise Ireland got more non-binding assurances on abortion (now irrelevant), taxation (query if that's still in place) and neutrality. They were pretty minimal - and that's understandable I don't think the EU could function if you had 27 renegotiations every time an agreed treaty came into difficult with ratification.

Again the stuff about the EU is not a uniquely British spin - it was common in the discourse in Ireland. I think there was a strong element of not wanting to put Ireland's place in the EU at risk and the context of that is the first referendum was in the summer of 2008 before Lehman, the second was in October 2009 and I think the desire for stability/a status quo vote was a huge part of the shift, understandably.

QuoteI would still argue that though there was the stream of ongoing union reforms et al that was British things would not have blown up so much were it not for the economic collapse of the early 70s, the battle against inflation, etc.... just as today we are still feeling 2008's fallout.

I think the early 70s still had an impact for sure. But the issue was that there hadn't been union reform and there was significant and growing union militancy - a lot of the old cold war union bosses were retiring which was part of it. I think we forget that there were also proper Marxists/hard left in left circles in Britain at that time who genuinely thought the seventies was a crisis in capitalism and one more push would help deliver socialism. There were even some who welcomed Thatcher winning because they were thinking a hard-line neo-liberal would accelerate the crisis - needless to say they were wrong.

QuoteThere were problems with the unions. But they weren't THE problem.
Ultimately it was bad timing with things coming to this critical period of change being needed on union law right as the global financial crisis kicked Britain particularly hard.
Its all interlinked and I really don't think the Yom Kippur/BW aspect gets the attention it deserves as the core of the problem with the simple version just being "It was the unions that ruined Britain".

I don't think they ruined Britain but I think closed shop unions and union militancy was basically extracting a rent on the British economy and blocking change - they were to the 70s what NIMBY landlords and home owners are now (they also need to be smashed if they refuse sensible reforms).

QuoteAnd you think these long term trends were Brexit related?
That the north finally woke up to regional inequality being a massive problem was the fault of the EU?- the organisation that recognises and seeks to fix this as one of its key goals - rather than skillfull campaigning in figuring out what people care about and then attaching arguments about that to an unrelated issue?

No of course not but I don't think that's the way anything works in politics or history. Humans are not logical so it doesn't happen that x issue only causes y solution which is linked to that issue. Long term problems and long term trends very often produce unexpected and unrelated outcomes because they squeeze into the opportunities for change that they have. A lot of politics, in my view, is taking those opportunities for your cause and trying to catch the wave of those, in this case, long term frustrations. I think the Leave campaign were more skilful with that but it's the long-term shifts in attitudes that matter. A campaign doesn't create support, it can only harness it.

QuoteJust checked up.
https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/labour-manifesto-2017.pdf
It sounds like a soft brexit to me. Primary goal is retaining the advantages of the single market and customs union. It seemed to me a Swiss sort of setup was where they were going.

The section on immigration: "Freedom of movement will end when we leave the European Union." That means hard Brexit and leaving the single market.

"Retaining the advantages of the single market and customs union" is not the same as staying in them. So they wanted to end free movement but get all the benefits of the single market and customs union without the obligations. As I say Labour's position has always been (in reality) hard Brexit or (in their imagination) cakeism. The only area I've ever seen cakeism has been with Labour - I think the Tories have always acknowledged that they want to end free movement, which means leaving the single market and there are consequences.

QuoteThe brexiters themselves are succesfully able to flip the it was/wasn't about immigration switch almost at whim. Doesn't the primary official version remain that it was about sovereignty?

Maybe - but objectively we all know it was about immigration. All of the evidence and polling since on why people voted Leave back that up - I think sovereignty was important for why many Leave leaders went that way, but again elite and popular opinion don't always align.

QuotePlus I'd rather just have a democratic UK and then no more referenda ever (well, OK, if somewhere wants independence they can do it). With a democratic country and the fascists taking their seats in parliament then the paint drinkers can't argue they weren't listened to.

Of course I'd say those reforms would probably, in my view, require a referendum :lol: :P