Hong-Kong Protests

Jura said:

the name of the treaty is
Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

hope you see it's a treaty between the UK and China, so UK "is there for HK" (until 2047 -- but that's a different story)

Click to expand...

What do you mean by “there for HK”? How so? Does the declaration spell out any specific actions that the UK is legally bound to do? Note that a legal document is not about moral support. It needs to spell out actions. What are UK’s actions?

Josh Luo said:

China versus the entire liberal world (including Japan and India). Do you really think China has a chance of winning?

Click to expand...

LMFAO!
Liberal world? What is liberal world?
Including India?
Oh, right. India.
What HK police need is only an Indian police wooden stick, and beat the mob up. Then the youth cockroach mob in HK will remember for the rest of their life that Western LIBERAL WORLD is good for nothing.

Jura said:

honey I'm not an international-law expert (LOL) but it's clear to me the UK and China signed an agreement related to then-UK territory, so the UK now wants China to adhere to that agreement, and in that sense 'the UK represents Hong Kong's interests' (until 2047)

as I said, I'm not a lawyer, so it'd be easy to defeat me in a play of words now; go ahead if you want

Click to expand...

I’m NOT playing with words. I am simply confused. And I am asking a question and begging for clarification. The same question that I’ve been asking for the past 3-4 posts: what exactly does the UK plan to do, per the joint declaration? It’s straightforward question. I honestly don’t see any trick or trap in it. All you need to do is to give me a list, bullet point of what the UK plans to do. You have a copy of the declaration...

You are the one who brought up the declaration and is trying to use it to support your claim. You can’t just throw out a piece of document and say “here! Here is my evidence! But you need to explain it to me why it can support my claim!” It’s your evidence. You need to explain it to me.

I’m no lawyer either, nor an expert on international law. That’s why I need some explanation, which you have not given in any meaningful manner. Again, keep in mind that you are the one who put forth the declaration as your support. Some rationale would be nice.

This is basically my interpretation of the Joint Declaration:

When you were a skinny pimply-faced 16 year old, a thug car-jacked you and told you if you want your car back, you pay him $100 a month for the next 30 years and he'll give it back to you. Seeing no other option, you sign a contract with him and get your car back. 10 years into it, you are now a 26 year old 280 pound professional MMA fighter who could shove the thug into a locker while texting your girlfriend with your other hand. Are you still gonna keep paying the thug his monthly extortion money which you "agreed" to?

I wouldn't.

Jura said:

the name of the treaty is
Joint Declaration of the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China on the Question of Hong Kong (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

)

hope you see it's a treaty between the UK and China, so UK "is there for HK" (until 2047 -- but that's a different story)

Click to expand...

First, a joint declaration by two govn'ts is not a TREATY. It is just a shared acknowledgement for something by the signatories at the time the declaration is signed. Don't misuse a treaty for a joint declaration, please.

Second, your web link is fake. It is not a true web site. This is at least an unprofessional conduct.

Just4Fun said:

... This is at least an unprofessional conduct.

Click to expand...

I used the link () which had been on top of my google search; if you want, we may ask Moderators to adjudicate (I'm guessing the easiest way would be you reporting me)

Jura said:

honey I'm not an international-law expert (LOL) but it's clear to me the UK and China signed an agreement related to then-UK territory, so the UK now wants China to adhere to that agreement, and in that sense 'the UK represents Hong Kong's interests' (until 2047)

as I said, I'm not a lawyer, so it'd be easy to defeat me in a play of words now; go ahead if you want

Click to expand...

The declaration was signed on 1984 and was a declaration on return of Hong Kong to China on July 1, 1997. Hence there was intentionally no declaration of UK actions post 1997 handover. This is done and now history,

GEEZ Do people don't know how to read anymore or just being coy.

"The Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of the People's Republic of China have reviewed with satisfaction the friendly relations existing between the two Governments and peoples in recent years and agreed that a proper negotiated settlement of the question of Hong Kong, which is left over from the past, is conducive to the maintenance of the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong and to the further strengthening and development of the relations between the two countries on a new basis. To this end, they have, after talks between the delegations of the two Governments, agreed to declare as follows:

1. The Government of the People's Republic of China declares that to recover the Hong Kong area (including Hong Kong Island, Kowloon and the New Territories, hereinafter referred to as Hong Kong) is the common aspiration of the entire Chinese people, and that it has decided to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997."

vesicles said:

I’m NOT playing with words. I am simply confused. And I am asking a question and begging for clarification. The same question that I’ve been asking for the past 3-4 posts: what exactly does the UK plan to do, per the joint declaration? It’s straightforward question. I honestly don’t see any trick or trap in it. All you need to do is to give me a list, bullet point of what the UK plans to do. You have a copy of the declaration...

You are the one who brought up the declaration and is trying to use it to support your claim. You can’t just throw out a piece of document and say “here! Here is my evidence! But you need to explain it to me why it can support my claim!” It’s your evidence. You need to explain it to me.

I’m no lawyer either, nor an expert on international law. That’s why I need some explanation, which you have not given in any meaningful manner. Again, keep in mind that you are the one who put forth the declaration as your support. Some rationale would be nice.

Click to expand...

well in this conversation you've asked eight questions before
:
#226 vesicles, Today at 5:12 PM

vesicles said:

What exactly is in this treaty?
So what does the UK plan to do next in a situation like this, based on the treaty?
If not, why does any of them still feel it’s their duty and honor to mess with HK, a piece of land they took by force?

Click to expand...

#228 vesicles, Today at 5:52 PM

vesicles said:

Does China have any duty or responsibilities for London?

Click to expand...

#232 vesicles, Today at 6:31 PM

vesicles said:

What do you mean by “there for HK”?
How so?
Does the declaration spell out any specific actions that the UK is legally bound to do?
What are UK’s actions?

Click to expand...

so now I see I missed what appears to be your most important question, of what would be an enforcement of that treaty's violation, and my answer is I don't know

in the meantime
Chaos, tear gas and violence return to streets of Hong Kong as protesters clash with police

• Skirmishes began after approved march through industrial heartland Kwun Tong, moving to nearby areas and across eastern Kowloon
• Community leaders and politicians had earlier urged the city’s chief executive to launch a public inquiry to allow meaningful dialogue to take place

follow the link if interested;

the BBC story:

Jura said:

I used the link (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

) which had been on top of my google search; if you want, we may ask Moderators to adjudicate (I'm guessing the easiest way would be you reporting me)

Click to expand...

I guess this is called misinformation by Google and others. Or simply put, it is an info warfare, because it is a faked . web site, but pretends to be an authentic one.