21 Oct 10
Originally posted by wolfgang59Starting from the bottom:
Some facts for you.
Northern Ireland (which you erroneously call Ulster) was not split from Ireland.
The Republic of Ireland split from the United Kingdom.
(I agree this was - in retrospect - not a good decision.)
It would be ridiculous now to force a decision on the people of Northern Ireland regardless of what Scots, Welsh or English want.
Hong ...[text shortened]... negotiate a new lease but China was having none of it. A totally different scenario to Ireland.
Of the treaties listed below, only the 1898 and 1899 agreements affect the modern
boundary between Hong Kong and China. The treaties of 1842 and 1860 provide the legal
basis for Britain's claims to sovereignty in perpetuity over certain areas of the colony.
A. Treaty between Great Britain and China - signed at Nanking, August 29, 1842.
Ratifications exchanged at Hong Kong, June 26, 1843.
According to Article III of the Nanking Treaty, "…the Island of Hong Kong, to be possessed
in perpetuity…" was ceded by China to Great Britain. The declaration of June 26, 1843,
creating the colony of Hong Kong, however, mentions the island of Hong Kong and its
dependencies. According to early maps, the "dependencies" included a limited number of
small islands located very close to the main island of Hong Kong.
B. Convention of Friendship between Great Britain and China - signed at Pekin(g),
October 24, 1860
Article VI of the Convention states:
"With a view to the maintenance of law and order in and about the harbour of Hong
Kong, His Imperial Majesty the Emperor of China agrees to cede to Her Majesty the
Queen of Great Britain and Ireland…, to have and to hold as a dependency of Her
Britannic Majesty's colony of Hong Kong, that portion of the township of Cowloon, in the
province of Kwang-tung, of which a lease was granted in perpetuity to Harry Smith
Parkes,…on behalf of Her Britannic Majesty's Government…"
"It is further declared that the lease in question is hereby cancelled;…"
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/collection/limitsinseas/ibs013.pdf
There were some territories on the mainland near Hong Kong which were leased for a 99 year period by a treaty in 1898 but the city itself, along with the city of Kowloon, were leased in "perpetuity" and the UK was under no legal obligation to return these areas to China. And the people living there overwhelmingly opposed reunification with China. Nonetheless, that's exactly what happened.
21 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderyou omit the 1984 Agreement
Starting from the bottom:
Of the treaties listed below, only the 1898 and 1899 agreements affect the modern
boundary between Hong Kong and China. [b]The treaties of 1842 and 1860 provide the legal
basis for Britain's claims to sovereignty in perpetuity over certain areas of the colony.
A. Treaty between Great Britain and China ...[text shortened]... ingly opposed reunification with China. Nonetheless, that's exactly what happened.[/b]
but at least you agree with the Irish information I gave you which was what we were talking about
21 Oct 10
2 edits
Technically, I should have said part of Ulster was split from Ireland as the Brits kept 6 counties of the province which overall had a Royalist majority and excluded three other counties since if they had been included there would have been a Republican majority overall even in the enclave (again this just shows how arbitrary the division was).
And the Brits split this part of Ulster from Ireland even before the 1921 Treaty establishing the Free State:
In the course of the war, the British Parliament enacted, in December 1920, a Home Rule Bill, providing separate parliaments for six counties of Ulster Province and for the remainder of Ireland.
http://www.iol.ie/~dluby/history.htm
21 Oct 10
1 edit
Originally posted by wolfgang59No, I don't you pompous fool; I was rebutting one piece of your misinformation at a time. The 1984 Agreements were the mechanism for giving back Hong Kong, but contrary to your assertion this was not required because "the lease had run out".
you omit the 1984 Agreement
but at least you agree with the Irish information I gave you which was what we were talking about
21 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderSounds like gerrymandering.
Technically, I should have said part of Ulster was split from Ireland as the Brits kept 6 counties of the province which overall had a Royalist majority and excluded three other counties since if they had been included there would have been a Republican majority overall (again this just shows how arbitrary the division was).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering
21 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy exactly? The enclave cited was created by invasion, occupation, ethnic cleansing and hundreds of years of repression.
Like almost every nation state and territory, then?
What makes a small group favored by its status override the wishes of majorities in both nations to right this historical wrong?
That they constitute the majority in the specific contested territory.
22 Oct 10
Originally posted by TeinosukeAbsolutely not. The creation of "Northern Ireland" as an entity was of recent vintage as nation states go (and it isn't even a nation state).
[b]Why exactly? The enclave cited was created by invasion, occupation, ethnic cleansing and hundreds of years of repression.
Like almost every nation state and territory, then?
What makes a small group favored by its status override the wishes of majorities in both nations to right this historical wrong?
That they constitute the majority in the specific contested territory.[/b]
Surely you are not suggesting that every tiny borough any place in the world should be able to join whatever country they please. There is no historic basis for an "Northern Ireland" which, mind you, doesn't even want independence but insists on staying part of a country where a large majority don't want it. Surely allowing such an absurd situation is unprecedented in human history.
22 Oct 10
Originally posted by no1marauderWas Hong Kong Island in the original lease? Or was it part of the conquered territory?
No, I don't you pompous fool; I was rebutting one piece of your misinformation at a time. The 1984 Agreements were the mechanism for giving back Hong Kong, but contrary to your assertion this was not required because "the lease had run out".