Are you high? The handover of Hong Kong was signed between the UK and the PRC

I suspect they’re referring to the 99 year lease the UK signed in 1898 with the Qing dynasty. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-British_Joint_Declarati...]

As to how they think that has anything to do with their points, it doesn’t of course - and the UK agreed, which is why they left. Also, because it’s not like the UK had any other choice.

I’m referring to the start of the agreement, not the end.

Fair, but why does that matter? The UK voluntarily relinquished control and handed HK back to the PRC

It did and I don’t think it could have gone to anyone else, leaving the choice as giving it to China, or keeping it.

The argument that it shouldn’t have gone to the CCP was one I heard from someone who lived there.

Why not? The PRC is the successor state. It makes less sense to hand HK over to ROC because the ROC never had sovereignty over HK.

Successor state by force, not by people’s choice. The small part that ended up democratic hasn’t chosen to join the PRC.

Not only were the PLA and CCP massively popular because of the insane corruption and hyperinflation under the Nationalists, the ROC imposed (at the time), the longest martial law in human history [1]

Taiwan is democratic today, because of transitional justice, but at the time when the PRC succeeded the ROC in China, the nationalists led by Chiang were as dictatorial as you can get

[1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror_(Taiwan)

And you think it would be ‘protecting’ the people of Hong Kong to argue with the CCP about it? Lulz

Or that it’s ever been about ‘protecting’ anyone when the British Crown fights anyone over territory? As compared to asserting ownership?

Not to mention the UK nearly lost it’s fight with Argentina - it wouldn’t even be pissing in the wind to go to war with China over Hong Kong.

How did Argentina “almost win” the Falklands war? I thought it was over almost before it started? Only thing that worked were some French missiles.

The UK had no ready means to replace their (far more significant than anyone expected) losses, and were at the very far end of their logistics chain. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War]. Which for the UK is crazy embarrassing. ‘Sun Never Sets on The British Empire’ and all.

They lost 6 ships (including 2 destroyers and 2 frigates), 24 helicopters, and 10 fighters + 255 KIA in the debacle. If the french hadn’t disabled those missiles, it would have been an even bigger mess. Do you think the UK gov’t wants to admit they got saved by the French?

If Argentina had their act even a little more together, or had even a little more commitment, there is nothing the UK could have done about it - except maybe nuke Buenos Aires. Which would probably have been a step too far, even for Thatcher.

Argentina was expecting zero resistance and got embarrassed they lost ships and soldiers too, and pulled out because it was making the Argentinian gov’t look bad.

But it was also really embarrassing for the UK. They had more losses there than they did fighting the Gulf War alongside the US.

In fact, since Northern Ireland, it took Afghanistan to even come close - and that was over a period of 10 years compared to ~ 6 months. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6605529d91a32...]