On August 29, 1842 onboard the British warship HMS Cornwallis in Nanjing, Chinese signed the Treaty of Nanking, which legally granted Hong Kong its independence.
The communists has not had control over HK since the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, which ceded sovereignty in perpetuity (forever). Some will argue that the Sino-British Joint Declaration cancelled the Treaty of Nanking, but it did not. According to international law experts and academics, treaties are superior to declartions, which means the Treaty of Nanking is still in effect!
This implies that China has been illegally occupying Hong Kong since 1997 and Hong Kong is still under the protection and governance of Great Britian in perpetuity. Better still, is that Taiwan independence groups sympathize with our plight:
That would only be the case if there were a dispute over Hong Kong between Great Britain and China. It does not require a treaty for Great Britain to cede Hong Kong island back to mainland China. And in any event, the entire Kowloon peninsula and the New Territories were only on lease to China. Only Hong Kong Island was given to Britain in perpetuity.
That would only be the case if there were a dispute over Hong Kong between Great Britain and China. It does not require a treaty for Great Britain to cede Hong Kong island back to mainland China. And in any event, the entire Kowloon peninsula and the New Territories were only on lease to China. Only Hong Kong Island was given to Britain in perpetuity.[/quote]
Actually, Kowloon was also taken/given in perpetuity. This part of HK extened up to what is still called Boundary Street. However, once the New Territories were leased, Boundary Street was no longer a boundary and it would have been nearly impossible to reseparate NT from Kowloon, not too mention that the runway at Kai Tek extended into NT and there aren’t enough sources of fresh water south of Boundary Street to last the people living there for more than a few days. Even with the reservoirs in NT, HK has needed water from the mainland for decades.
Damn. Why did I bother writing that? This whole thread needs to go swimming with the flounders.
Ah? I had read Kowloon was leased for 99 years at the price of 1 monetary unit (I’m not sure if it was yuan, pounds, or something else) per year, and that the New Territories was on a separate lease.
When did that get into perpetuity?
(FYI: I found that information myself-- whatever I had read was inaccurate. Kowloon was ceded separately from HK island, but it was not under lease.)
You may be able to “prove” that Hong Kong still belongs to Britain or is independent, much like Hartzell wants to “prove” Taiwan is a US military protectorate, but it doesn’t matter if neither party, aka Taiwan or the US, or Britain or Hong Kong, is even remotely likely to pursue such an impracticable and disasterous course of action. Sorry.
Maybe if you went to Hong Kong and, like Hartzell, helped raise awareness of British citizen’s inability to get 6-year licenses or something, they’d take you more seriously. It apparently also helps to use complicated grammar and big words to make yourself sound more legally competent, so you might want to put more thought, research and vague historical footnotes in your posts. Write the local Hong Kong papers (the ones sympathetic to your cause), approach radical political parties who hate China and see you as a useful tool in their fight for Hong Kong independence. I think others have found that that will get you further than just posting here.
[quote]According to international law experts and academics, treaties are superior to declartions, which means the Treaty of Nanjing is still in effect!
This implies that China has been illegally occupying Hong Kong since 1997 and Hong Kong is still under the protection and governance of Great Britian in perpetuity[/quote]
Don’t be stupid. Britain intentially forfeit all the treaty rights in the 80s when the government decided it no longer wanted Hong Kong. Thus the long decade of negotiations with the PRC on how exactly to return HK back to it.