If the protesters wanted changes to the treaty that's one thing, but the no treaty position makes no sense unless the lack of any treaty is protecting some very corrupt people who had been powerful under British rule.
Hong Kong routinely extradites people to many countries. So, I don't get the idea of no treaty as opposed to one that covers crimes recognized as crimes even within Hong Kong.
JMHo
>>Hong Kong routinely extradites people to many countries. So, I don’t get the idea of no treaty as opposed to one that covers crimes recognized as crimes even within Hong Kong.<<
I could be wrong, but I think the problem with the proposed law (treaty?) was that it would cover actions recognized as crimes within China, not Hong Kong itself. And the definition of a crime in a communist dictatorship can be very fluid, tailored to fit the current needs of the leadership.
The fact remains, however, that Hong Kong is destined to be under the thumb of the Chinese government eventually, and possibly sooner rather than later. If it’s taken by force soon, no one is going to try to stop them militarily. After all, it’s now a part of China officially, just with a different set of rules for the time being.
Hong Kong’s best chance, in my opinion, is that the trade war is hurting China sufficiently to bring about a change in their trade behavior and that part of the negotiations behind the scenes will address Hong Kong’s situation. Given the city’s role in world trade, that’s certainly possible.
But when the 50 years are up, Hong Kong people will be living under Chinese rule, whatever that might be at the time.
I never knew there were so many idiots who post here.
Give it some thought, you’ll understand.