“Just because it’s not mentioned doesn’t mean that’s not the cause”
Lol.
The cause mentioned in the treaty.
1. The Government of the People’s Republic of China declares [...] it has decided to resume the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong with effect from 1 July 1997.
https://www.cmab.gov.hk/en/issues/jd2.htm
It’s not the lease. They held since the day of their founding that Hong Kong was theirs and they decided to resume exercising their right.
The ChiComs do not even acknowledge the legitimacy of the lease or the two treaties that ceded Hong Kong and Kowloon to the UK in perpetuity.
They did not base their signing the agreement on the lease in any way.
They don’t even hold the lease.
You simply said things that are false. If you were ignorant and believed it in error that is not lying.
Of course it was the lease. You’re saying it was just a coincidence that the treaty went into effect the day after the lease expired?! Really?!
Nobody hold the lease, it ENDED. It’s now a matter of history.
I said nothing false. Hong Kong went to China because the lease ended. You’re worshiping a pointless quibble. The 8% that wasn’t covered in the lease would NEVER have been returned to China if the lease didn’t end. And you know it. You’re the liar hear.