China agreed to accept some conditions, as is stipulated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, such as the drafting and adoption of Hong Kong’s “mini-constitution” Basic Law before its return. The Hong Kong Basic Law ensured that Hong Kong will retain its capitalist economic system and own currency (the Hong Kong Dollar), legal system, legislative system, and same human rights and freedoms, as a special administrative region (SAR) of China for 50 years.
1 Like
I’m not saying they didn’t make promises, but they didn’t have to make promises and it was silly to expect them to keep any promises they made.
Ultra short term minded capitalists : we’ll sign an agreement that holds for 50 years that’s basically forever I can’t imagine 50 years into the future.
5000 year old Chinese state : yeah, we’ll wait…
1 Like
Why wouldn’t they? The mainland has a capitalist economic system too.
Not sure what you mean by they didn’t have to make promises. Their two options were to negotiate a treaty with the UK, or to take back Hong Kong by force, which they threatened to do and Thatcher acknowledged the UK couldn’t prevent. But if they went the treaty route, they did have to make promises.
This isn’t an interpretation, it’s taken directly from the Senate website:
As a staff official, neither parliamentarian is empowered to make decisions that are binding on the House or Senate. The parliamentarians and their deputies/assistants only offer advice that the presiding Representative or Senator may accept or reject;
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RS/RS20544
This article spells out exactly what these grifting cowards are doing:
Many leftists suspect that what the Democratic leadership is doing right now is similar — playing a “rotating villain game” where they let various figures take the blame for not passing important reforms. Sometimes it’s Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema. Sometimes it’s the parliamentarian. But these obstacles aren’t really why the Democratic leadership isn’t passing these reforms. They just don’t want to — or at least they don’t want it enough.
That sounds cynical, but in this case, the truth is even worse. It’s not that Democrats are using the fact that they can’t do something they don’t want to do as an excuse. The more we look at the actual legal status and powers of the Senate parliamentarian, the more the real situation starts to look like this:
Black points his finger at Jones and says, “This is a gun. If you don’t do what I say, I’ll shoot you!” Jones grins from ear to ear and says, “In that case, I better do what you say!”
1 Like
Oh really? Here’s what the GOP does when they don’t agree with the parlimentarian.
So yes, it’s another rule that only one party abides by.
The UK could only retain their colonialist control of Hong Kong by force and they chose to negotiate instead.
rotating villain is exactly what’s happening here. this bill has no chance.
i dont know why we act so surprised our politicians are owned by corporate interests when we allow them to take unlimited money from them practically without oversight.
3 Likes
Vote harder imo
2 Likes
The office of the parliamentarian exists for good reasons.
gonna make a prediction that by 2026 “vote harder” is gonna be a macabre meme once even the illusion of fair elections is gone
It’s very easy to imagine China redefining modern warfare when you consider what American rebels did vs the British military.
The dismissal of Dove was petty and they just replaced him with someone who made the same rulings. There’s a very limited number of people who are qualified for the job.
1 Like
I’m not disputing that. They do a lot more than Byrd rule opinions.
That’s the way to make yourself “feel” like you’ve won. Believe it or not, some actually read the content of posts and decide winner by number of salient points made, not insults
1 Like
Radical Socialist Joe Manchin! I knew it!