Hindsight is 20/20 but global hegemonic theory may guide that from the perspective of the still waning GB empire, the long term cost associated with keeping it would go up and eventually lead to direct conflict. It could have also been a side move to burden the US with the diplomatic cost of maintaining it, knowing that the US would do so as a check to China.
I have no idea what the intricacies of their treaties might say, but I have the gut feeling that England somehow still manages to suck those previous colonies dry while now putting the costs of governance back onto the supposedly freed indigenous peoples.
I would imagine they remain closely tied through the City of London, which is separate from London and the U.K. proper in that it’s a corporate administered city. I’d think that Hong Kong’s financial instruments are still tied in closely.
view the rest of the comments →
SurfinMindWaves ago
Serious question conspiritard brethren: What was the real reason England gave Hong Kong back to China? The Crown spreading around a little more chaos?
UnknownCitizen ago
Hindsight is 20/20 but global hegemonic theory may guide that from the perspective of the still waning GB empire, the long term cost associated with keeping it would go up and eventually lead to direct conflict. It could have also been a side move to burden the US with the diplomatic cost of maintaining it, knowing that the US would do so as a check to China.
SurfinMindWaves ago
Is there a hidden payoff for inciting conflict?
I have no idea what the intricacies of their treaties might say, but I have the gut feeling that England somehow still manages to suck those previous colonies dry while now putting the costs of governance back onto the supposedly freed indigenous peoples.
UnknownCitizen ago
I would imagine they remain closely tied through the City of London, which is separate from London and the U.K. proper in that it’s a corporate administered city. I’d think that Hong Kong’s financial instruments are still tied in closely.