But the real question... what will happen with .io TLD? (British Indian Ocean Territory's)
noirscape · 39m ago
It should eventually get removed by ICANN, since the country code TLDs are managed by ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 (it's however not an exact match), and the transfer will mean the British Indian Ocean Territories will no longer exist. ISO is going to be the entity in charge of removing the io country code, which it probably will do since ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 isn't just used for domain names. There's a standardized process for this; from the top of my head, you'll have 3-5 years before the TLD fully vanishes and for current domains to expire. (Also, because it's a country code, certain protections you're supposed to have as a domain owner won't apply to you; ICANN basically gives up underlying management of the ccTLD space to the countries that own them, meaning anything you're given is at the grace of the country owning them - this applies for all ccTLDs, which is why some UK domain owners suddenly lost control over their .eu domains when Brexit happened.)
It's not the first time a TLD has been removed; a couple of TLDs have been scrapped in the past when countries split up or got merged (chiefly in the aftermath of the cold war)[0]. For the most part, those domain names weren't in heavy use. There's also a few high-profile failures of removal: .uk was used instead of .gb in the early days of the internet before 2-letter codes were standardized to ISO, which is why the UK uses .uk instead of .gb (an attempt to scrap .uk was attempted, but failed almost immediately). .su also should have been scrapped ages ago, but because the Russian entity that manages it refuses to cooperate with ICANN, the TLD is still in use, from what I can tell just because they don't want to risk breaking the internet.
The .su TLD is the one with the closest amount of use as the .io TLD has today. That said, it's unlikely that the entity currently managing .io (a hedge fund if I'm not mistaken) has the legal muscle to force ICANN to keep it in the list, the way the Russian domain name registrar has been able to.
The sun does not set on the French Empire is still alive with french Guyanna in South America, Mayotte and la Réunion in Africa and New Caledonia and French Polynesia in Pacific Ocean.
I've long enjoyed the blooper from Richard Lederer's collection that asserted "The sun never sets on the British Empire because the British Empire is in the east and the sun sets in the west."
I think I saw it in the fortune file first.
ozim · 2h ago
As an outsider I consider Canada and Australia - British Empire.
Hard to think otherwise as they have the same king.
SECProto · 51m ago
the last time the British tried to have anything to do with the governing of Canada was a century ago, and it went poorly (and led to the statute of Westminster, removing that as an option).
To be satisfyingly pedantic, my King isn’t the same King. Mine is the King of Canada. It just happens to be the same person as the King of England and the King of Australia ;)
ericd · 56m ago
Some friends and I started playing Crusader Kings 2 recently. If anyone wants a thorough education in the weirdness of feudal monarchy, I highly recommend it, half the game is manipulating weird inheritance laws/scenarios to grow your holdings.
lifeisstillgood · 47m ago
Is that true?
“””
Charles III, by the Grace of God, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith.
“””
So in my head canon, he is the King of the UK and Canada … the same person and the same office. Ie there is no King of Canada officially - the title is always King of UK (first) and of other places as well … in short whilst Canada has a King, there is not a title “King Of Canada” that he can hold as well as holding “king of UK”
"""
Queen Elizabeth II was the first of Canada's sovereigns to be proclaimed separately as Queen of Canada in 1953, when a Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act, formally conferred upon her the title of "Queen of Canada". The proclamation reaffirmed the monarch’s role in Canada as independent of the monarch’s role in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms.
"""
extraduder_ire · 1h ago
Much like how one of the princes of Andorra is the same person who is president of France.
monocasa · 1h ago
Do you have different rules for succession to where it might eventually be a different person?
MatthewWilkes · 3m ago
The last time the succession rules were changed (2013), it was following an agreement by the relevant countries. It was called the "Perth Agreement".
Waterluvian · 1h ago
No I believe we have a "rule of recognition" where our monarch is just whoever the UK's monarch is.
KoolKat23 · 1h ago
If it walks like King Charles, and quacks like King Charles, then it must be...
Waterluvian · 1h ago
assert(king_of_canada === king_of_england);
They are the same by identity!
moomin · 1h ago
Depends if you’re comparing the people or the office holders. The office holder is a tuple.
ozim · 1h ago
Dude lives in Buckingham Palace In UK … that’s kind of a dead giveaway :)
xanderlewis · 1h ago
I guess the Axiom of Extensionality doesn’t apply to kings. Interesting.
paulddraper · 1h ago
Coincidentally, that has been true for a while, through multiple kings/queens of Canada.
robotresearcher · 1h ago
Since 1984. One of the facts I learned for the Canadian citizenship exam.
So only Elizabeth and Charles.
paulddraper · 19m ago
Perhaps so.
Should you care, here’s the link to correct Wikipedia:
Does their king have any more hard powers in Canada or Australia than, say, Taylor Swift or some other rich celebrity?
Waterluvian · 1h ago
Kind of! There's nothing on paper that says the King can't just decide that democracy is over and dissolve Parliament. Another example is that the King's representation in Canada, the Governor General, unilaterally gets to decide whether or not to give any passed legislation "royal assent." However in practice, they always do and they otherwise never put their thumb on the scale. Doing so would be a constitutional crisis that would likely end our relationship with the Monarchy more formally and put pen to paper that no, you don't actually have any real kingly powers.
The Governor General has in recent times prorogued Parliament when the Prime Minister asked them to. Ie. "This is politically nasty. Let's hit the pause button and come back when things are better and we're not about to be ejected from power..." And that has been politically controversial. Historically the Governor General just says yes because they want to avoid playing a political role at all (ie. preserving this convention that the Monarchy is really just a decoration of our government).
wk_end · 1h ago
Technically. The king here has as much power as he has in the UK. And, likewise, if ever exercised it’d probably lead to the end of the monarchy.
In practice Taylor Swift might have more.
sjducb · 1h ago
In 1975 the British Queen instructed her representative the governor general to dismiss the Australian prime minister, dissolving the Australian parliament.
In principle this power still exists. Whether Charles could pull off the same trick depends on the political situation on the ground.
ztetranz · 59m ago
I don't think the Queen instructed the Governor General to do that. He made the decision.
I'm old enough to remember it and remember a statement from the palace saying something like "The Queen is watching events in Australia with interest" but I don't think she took an active part.
I quick search reveals this. I don't know this site but if true then some letters seem to confirm the above. She told the GG to obey the Australian Constitution.
We do not have the same king. The King of Great Brittan is not the King of Canada, they just happen to be the same person. Is the US also part of the British Empire?
ozim · 1h ago
Obviously not as US does not have king in their legal system at all.
bobsmooth · 1h ago
And the UK has no influence on Canadian governance.
tonymet · 43m ago
the king can call you to war right?
robotresearcher · 1h ago
Canada is no longer part of the British Empire. Neither is the US, since the end of the War of Independence. That’s what independence means.
bobsmooth · 1h ago
Great, tell ozim that.
ozim · 42m ago
Well I did not expect the thread to be that good ... but I am definitely going to get popcorn out to eat while I read all the people telling me that :)
mapontosevenths · 1h ago
The sun shall never set upon the British empire, because God does not trust the bastards in the dark.
dang · 2h ago
[stub for offtopicness / genericness]
throttlebody · 2h ago
The British banks and their tax heavens still very much control the world of money.
The commonwealth barely hangs together outside of the world of cricket.....
trallnag · 2h ago
"Gott strafe England!" (translates to "May God punish England!")
Whenever the British Empire is mentioned, I involuntary have to think of this German slogan from WW1. The only military memorabilia I own carries this slogan. I came across the slogan in a meme featuring Donald Duck and found the vignette on a flea market.
rayiner · 3h ago
I wonder what will be the legacy of the British Empire. The Roman Empire lived on in a sense as many of the barbarian kingdoms purported to be continuations of the empire for a long time: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbarian_kingdoms. That hasn’t been the case with the British Empire.
cperciva · 2h ago
The British Commonwealth isn't entirely different from the Barbarian Kingdoms -- a lot of the political structure (elections to a Parliament modelled on Westminster, a nominally apolitical civil service) have been largely retained, and even almost a century after the Statute of Westminster the Commonwealth countries routinely look to the British for leadership in matters of foreign relations.
History doesn't repeat, but I think we're well into the realm of history rhyming here.
throawaywpg · 2h ago
Hmmm. Canada, NZ, Australia and even SA are all pretty darn "British," to this Commonwealth citizen.
mark_l_watson · 2h ago
In some small sense the British Empire lives on through the US hegemony. The British were experts at replacing local governments with people they could control, and since the Second World War we have tried doing the same thing.
msgodel · 2h ago
America? the Anglosphere? the improvements to India? The almost complete eradication of slavery? The web? The British Empire arguably has a greater legacy than the Roman Empire.
leosanchez · 1h ago
> the improvements to India
You can't be serious.
throawaywpg · 2h ago
improvements to India? Improvements to Britannia you mean!
corimaith · 2h ago
Virtually ever state today has more in common with Western States in the 19th century than their political predecessors. It would correct to say that we are "Western Cores" with X cultural skin than the opposite. Within that core, whether it's common law, parliamentary systems, or even beachgoing as a recreational activity, the British contributed major parts that define our day to day life.
FridayoLeary · 3h ago
It's sadly symbolic of the current political direction of the UK. It's probably not too important either way, but the chagos island deal is one of the most one sided I have ever seen. On a darker note the UK was unable to protect the people of Hong Kong when it mattered in another symbol of it's decline. At least they had enough courage and strength to support Ukraine in the early days of the war when nobody else would. Boris Johnson for all his other faults deserves full credit for that
Cyph0n · 3h ago
No, it’s not symbolic of anything. The reality is that the UK has long been relegated to the status of a non-world power, but still acts as if it is one by clinging onto its colonial past.
This reminds me of an interview with the CCP spokesperson from last year when asked about how China sees the UK (timestamped): https://youtu.be/8jZ0KTRUgpU?t=240
permo-w · 3h ago
you'd be naive to believe anyone saying anything like this. in fact if a speaker with vested interests feels the need to say something like this, then more than likely the reverse is true. the UK often tiptoes where it should stride, and it's in China's interest to keep it that way. it's obviously not a super power and hasn't been since WW2--or Suez depending on how you look at it--but it's still the world's sixth largest economy, has nukes, and has masses of soft and hard power that other powers would prefer that it doesn't make use of
42lux · 3h ago
They have nukes which is enough to sit on the table. Even if you don't like it or them.
Cyph0n · 3h ago
North Korea has nukes too.
42lux · 2h ago
When North Korea can deliver these supposed nukes to your front door they will have a seat as well.
lazide · 6m ago
If you’re in Asia, that day has already passed.
They mostly don’t have a seat because they don’t actually want one - and China would get nervous. it pays better and is more stable for them to be the outsider.
renewiltord · 2h ago
I thought range(Hwasong-19) >= range(Trident-2). I doubt they'd get a seat for that.
42lux · 1h ago
Delivery mechanism is what matters not missile range...
renewiltord · 2m ago
It's not sub-launched you mean? I see.
ksec · 3h ago
What CCP is essentially saying Britain is nothing in their view.
permo-w · 1h ago
that's the image they want to put across
rwmj · 3h ago
The UK offered residence with a path to citizenship for all BNO holders in Hong Kong, which was pretty much the limits of the UK's power. What are we going to do? Invade Hong Kong? Hold China over a barrel by refusing to sell whatever it is we sell to China (Scotch whisky?)
As for the Chagos islands, it's by far the best thing to get rid of them. There's no value at all and a lot of trouble keeping them.
lostlogin · 3h ago
> What are we going to do?
I heard a Hong Kong national argue that that the end of the agreement should have seen Hong Kong go back to Taiwan, not China, because the initial agreement wasn’t made with the CCP and the Taiwanese government is closer to being the natural successor.
I can only begin to imagine the shit storm this would have caused.
tomatocracy · 2h ago
One obvious problem with that is that the UK voted in favour of the UN resolution recognizing the CCP government in the 1970s.
hungmung · 3h ago
I would have ordered a dump truck full of popcorn for that.
In a similar vein, Russia should never have got USSR's UN security council seat.
notahacker · 35m ago
> In a similar vein, Russia should never have got USSR's UN security council seat.
Now that's an interesting counterfactual. The legal case was weak, and certainly they didn't have to on account of Russia's strength. Other than nukes, which a few non-SC members have, a lot of mostly empty land area and a space programme, Russia's credentials as a superpower aren't great when it's not the same country as Ukraine and central Asia and doesn't also hold sway over Warsaw Pact countries. Not sure China necessarily saw them as a friendly counterweight to the West then either. On the other hand, they had the other CIS states all insisting Russia was the true continuation of the USSR, no objections and they probably thought that it would help Russia become friends. Does the world look vastly different if Russia goes through an application process to rejoin the UN and doesn't get a seat on the Security Council? Perhaps not, but I'm sure Mearsheimer et al would explain that every act of violence Russia undertook afterwards was a natural response to it...
ksec · 3h ago
>Hold China over a barrel by refusing to sell whatever it is we sell to China
China is currently the largest or 2nd largest buyer of UK Pork.
Although I won't be surprised in 2-3 years time China will use it as leverage. As they did with Denmark.
And it is not that China wants any of these either. UK is currently desperately trying to increase its export ( without success )
lostlogin · 3h ago
> China is currently the largest or 2nd largest buyer of UK Pork.
If the UK had stuck with Truss, that mightn’t have been true. She was opening up new pork markets.
EliRivers · 3h ago
The Chagos Islands are very valuable as an unsinkable, static aircraft carrier in the middle of the Indian Ocean. Obviously valuable to a nation with the capability to actually support and operate such an aircraft carrier.
random9749832 · 3h ago
I think you are just highlighting how the UK is losing agency in the world. At this rate it will become a museum.
bluerooibos · 3h ago
Last time I checked, most countries today, aside from Russia, aren't in the business of invading other countries and expanding territory or forming colonies. The UK will be just fine - it's doing as much as any other western country to keep it's relevance.
random9749832 · 3h ago
A country can have leverage that goes beyond how much potential it has to invade or destroy another nation.
> Last time I checked, most countries today, aside from Russia, aren't in the business of invading other countries and expanding territory
How about Israel that the UK is arming? Though in the case of the UK it is contracting.
> The UK will be just fine - it's doing as much as any other western country to keep it's relevance.
That's reassuring.
andsoitis · 29m ago
> how the UK is losing agency in the world
Do you mean:
a) agency
b) influence
c) something else?
rwmj · 2h ago
The UK is a mid-sized country in Europe, and that's fine. Only you seem to think this is a problem.
throawaywpg · 2h ago
with another several mid-sized countries closely connected to it
alwa · 3h ago
I’m unfamiliar, what’s the trouble in keeping them? I thought they’d long ago evicted the natives, and more or less handed the islands over to the Americans—does this move relieve them of either of those headaches?
Is the idea that Chagossian repatriation now becomes a Mauritian problem? Had the British been taking that problem particularly seriously?
Or more to do with the British not really wanting to be caught between the Americans and increasingly assertive regional powers who may be annoyed by the Americans’ stronghold there?
rwmj · 3h ago
It's a constant source of legal action and negative news. There's not any strategic need for the UK to keep an island in the Indian Ocean. Might as well get rid of the whole mess for someone else to sort out.
amenhotep · 1h ago
I'm sure that showing ourselves as happy to be bullied into paying to give up territory by legal action and negative news will in no way give anyone else ideas about what might be a good way to get stuff they want from us
FridayoLeary · 3h ago
I don't agree. The UK can still accomplish great things if has the political will, but each time they concede they lose more and more ground. Could they have done more to protect HK? perhaps but they didn't try and now we'll never know.
Again the chagos islands, I know very little about them, but I understand that the islanders themselves hate the deal. And the UK is offering a whole lot of money to keep the military bases they had for free. You can say it was a matter of international law but Mauritius claim to the island is laughable, they are more than 1000 miles away. Also the way the deal was presented as a step away from colonialism etc just feels wrong. Timid apologetics isn't a good way to advance the UKs interest, nor is it helpful for the rest of the world for the UK to be weak and ineffective. Just look at how they helped Ukraine. Again the politicians have no will or national pride to stand up for the UKs interests and it's a shame.
afavour · 3h ago
> perhaps but they didn't try
Do we know that? Presumably there were negotiations. Normally both parties in a negotiation start at extreme opposites and make their way somewhere in the middle. Obviously we don’t/won’t know every detail but I don’t know you can say they didn’t try. Simple reality is that the UK wasn’t holding a lot of cards in that negotiation.
throawaywpg · 2h ago
There's no realistic way for the UK or anyone else to guarantee Hong Kong political freedom short of war with China.
majormajor · 3h ago
How would the UK have kept Hong Kong if China didn't want them to? Would an invasion have been better for the people of Hong Kong? How would the UK have won that battle from that far away?
Are you aware that is an impossible situation in the UK and that you should never listen to journalists or economists on this topic. They haven’t a clue what they are talking about.
Look at the one month Treasury bill to see the actual situation.
jbm · 3h ago
I don't know how much I trust bond buyers and other "Market participants" to have a meaningful long-term view of a financial position with the many destabilising factors we are seeing (Social, Climate, etc..). They are accurate until they aren't.
Maybe 20 years from now, you will be on a resort laughing at the treasury bill rates of 2025 and compare their accuracy to pets.com.
KineticLensman · 2h ago
> that you should never listen to journalists or economists on this topic
These journalists do not say that Britain is bankrupt. Their article was arbitrarily cited by someone else to support his claim about Britain.
FridayoLeary · 3h ago
I know and it's a crying shame, we should be doing everything we can to encourage innovation and growth, not finding new ways to tax businesses and the people who run them. The conservatives kind of gutted public services, but the governments priority atm should really be on increasing prosperity. I can only think of one recent prime minister who had that vision and the less said about her the better.
lazide · 3h ago
‘Protect the people of hong Kong’?
You mean follow the treaty they signed ages ago?
CorrectHorseBat · 3h ago
They could have done quite a lot to piss of the Chinese while still honoring the treaty. The lease was only for the New Territories, but they gave all of HK back. Or they could have tried to give it to the government in Taiwan.
Whether that would have protected the people of Hong Kong is another matter. I think at the time people were still optimistic about the direction China was taking and they might have thought China would be a democracy by 2047.
renewiltord · 2h ago
Taiwan would have refused since this would have instantly precipitated war with the mainland.
wk_end · 1h ago
They might mean “retaliate to the violation of the treaty they signed”. Hong Kong was supposed to get fifty years of autonomy; the National Security Law ended that prematurely.
lazide · 7m ago
The UK long ago lost any ability to meaningfully enforce those terms. Or do you expect them to somehow start torpedoing Chinese boats in the Straight or something to make China pay?
lostlogin · 3h ago
Who was the treaty signed with? It wasn’t the CCP.
budududuroiu · 3h ago
Are you high? The handover of Hong Kong was signed between the UK and the PRC
lostlogin · 2h ago
I’m referring to the start of the agreement, not the end.
budududuroiu · 2h ago
Fair, but why does that matter? The UK voluntarily relinquished control and handed HK back to the PRC
lostlogin · 2h ago
It did and I don’t think it could have gone to anyone else, leaving the choice as giving it to China, or keeping it.
The argument that it shouldn’t have gone to the CCP was one I heard from someone who lived there.
budududuroiu · 2h ago
Why not? The PRC is the successor state. It makes less sense to hand HK over to ROC because the ROC never had sovereignty over HK.
As to how they think that has anything to do with their points, it doesn’t of course - and the UK agreed, which is why they left. Also, because it’s not like the UK had any other choice.
lazide · 3h ago
And you think it would be ‘protecting’ the people of Hong Kong to argue with the CCP about it? Lulz
Or that it’s ever been about ‘protecting’ anyone when the British Crown fights anyone over territory? As compared to asserting ownership?
Not to mention the UK nearly lost it’s fight with Argentina - it wouldn’t even be pissing in the wind to go to war with China over Hong Kong.
mc32 · 3h ago
How did Argentina “almost win” the Falklands war? I thought it was over almost before it started? Only thing that worked were some French missiles.
lazide · 2h ago
The UK had no ready means to replace their (far more significant than anyone expected) losses, and were at the very far end of their logistics chain. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War]. Which for the UK is crazy embarrassing. ‘Sun Never Sets on The British Empire’ and all.
They lost 6 ships (including 2 destroyers and 2 frigates), 24 helicopters, and 10 fighters + 255 KIA in the debacle. If the french hadn’t disabled those missiles, it would have been an even bigger mess. Do you think the UK gov’t wants to admit they got saved by the French?
If Argentina had their act even a little more together, or had even a little more commitment, there is nothing the UK could have done about it - except maybe nuke Buenos Aires. Which would probably have been a step too far, even for Thatcher.
Argentina was expecting zero resistance and got embarrassed they lost ships and soldiers too, and pulled out because it was making the Argentinian gov’t look bad.
But it was also really embarrassing for the UK. They had more losses there than they did fighting the Gulf War alongside the US.
The idea that the British were holding territory in the world to protect anyone is laughable
WillPostForFood · 3h ago
Do you think citizens of Hong Kong would choose the Chinese rule of today, or go back to British rule if they could?
jedberg · 3h ago
> Do you think citizens of Hong Kong would choose the Chinese rule of today, or go back to British rule if they could?
I think the people that lived there in 1997 would absolutely want to go back to British rule. But you have to remember that it's been nearly 30 years since it went to Chinese rule. All the young people there prefer Chinese rule, because they grew up with schools teaching them that the British were bad and the Chinese were good.
And at the same time, the most pro-British people left, either going to the USA or Canada, or actually taking advantage of the UKs right-to-return programs and going to the UK itself.
So if you asked the people who lived there today, they majority say they prefer Chinese rule.
My prediction is that they will no longer operate as an SEZ within the decade and will be folded fully into China.
CorrectHorseBat · 3h ago
I don't think so, did you forget about the Umbrella Movement?
jedberg · 2h ago
That was over a decade ago. There is almost an entire generation that has come up since then, being told China is good and British is bad. And in the meantime China made protesting illegal, and now rounds up and ships off anyone who protests.
However what that shows is that the majority of adults in HK (74%) feel an attachment to China, and in the meantime China is making it illegal to disagree with them.
CorrectHorseBat · 1h ago
>That was over a decade ago.
You make me feel old
>In June 2019, millions took to the streets again in massive pro-democracy protests.
This was only 6 years ago.
>Hong Kongers ages 35 and older are more likely than their younger counterparts to feel very close to China.
That's the exact opposite of what you claim.
I agree they'll likely succeed in the end but they have not yet made HK just another part of China.
jedberg · 1h ago
> You make me feel old
I watched the changeover live on TV in my 20s. :)
>> Hong Kongers ages 35 and older are more likely than their younger counterparts to feel very close to China.
> That's the exact opposite of what you claim.
No, it's not. What I said was young people have been growing up with propaganda, and of the people who were there for the changeover and remember it (people over 35), the ones who don't like China have left the country because they could. The ones under 35 (well technically 28) don't have that option, because you had to be born before the changeover to get the British citizenship, which is what lets you easily move to Canada, Australia, and lots of other places.
Which would mean that those over 35 that are still there are the ones that were already pro-China. So that tracks with the data.
In other words, China is indoctrinating the youth and the people who have to option to leave and hate China are leaving, so only the people that love China or were indoctrinated by it are left behind.
CorrectHorseBat · 56m ago
That's a possible explanation, but I'm not completely convinced it is without numbers. Maybe it's those under 35 who don't remember the bad of the British rule?
But even then, less than 50% of people under 35 call themselves Chinese (not even both Hong Konger and Chinese). And half of the adults call China a major threat, 22% a minor threat. Those are pretty bad numbers for indoctrination.
lostlogin · 3h ago
That isn’t why the British were there though.
kingkawn · 3h ago
Do you think they would have chose British rule when it first began?
poncho_romero · 59m ago
Almost no one lived there at the time. Look at photos of how Hong Kong transformed under British rule
lazide · 3h ago
Do you think the subjects of British colonies ever had much of a say in the matter?
If they really really wanted too, they could have tried to go the USA route and kick both parties out and be independent. But there is approximately zero chance they would have succeeded, eh?
ksec · 3h ago
-Your access to this site has been limited by the site owner
Am I the only one getting this ?
PicassoCTs · 53m ago
Ah, the british empire- the modern atlantis- as in its gone with no relevance for aeons, but still on the frontpage.
tonymet · 40m ago
Though empires are out of fashion , British colonies universally benefited from the British empire. The ones who are thriving today owe a huge debt of gratitude, and the languishing ones are that way because they decided not to continue the British tradition.
The 20th century decline of the British empire is one of civilization's worst failures, on par with the decline of the Roman Empire.
sys_64738 · 33m ago
I remember asking this question to a work colleague from India almost 30 years ago. I asked something like if he hated the Brits for invading his land. He said on the contrary. They advanced their people so rapidly and efficiently through education and technical advances that would have taken hundreds of years by themselves. He said this allowed them to kick the British out once they had outlived their usefulness. Or something like that. It's been along time since I thought about it.
Spooky23 · 21m ago
Like anything, it depends on your point of view and time.
My grandparents and their generation were all born in Ireland, and had a very different outlook than the people who remained and folks you talk to today there. People just want to live their lives.
jeromegv · 24m ago
So you found 1 person 30 years ago to justify colonialism?
grugagag · 15m ago
It appears the person didn’t justify colonialism, they noted the benefit they got which concluded with them kicking out the colonizer.
kelseyfrog · 28m ago
It sounds like you're saying, "British colonialism was worth it." Am I getting that right?
I wonder what the aggregate sentiment of colonialism is in former British colonies.
bji9jhff · 17m ago
I like to read HN because the conversation here is higher quality than elsewhere, when the subject is tech. But when the conversation deviate to politic, I'm reminded that outside their limited expertise, people here are no better than elsewhere as I read the same ignorant drivel I can find everywhere.
Yeah. I'm from Malaysia, and while we definitely benefited in many ways, to state that we do not still have massive and pervasive social issues as a result of colonization is insane. I'm glad you posted the link above and spoke up. I didn't even know where to start, but was worried someone might take the original comment seriously.
jeromegv · 25m ago
This viewpoint is still way too popular and was also used to genocide millions of indigenous people, we definitely need to keep speaking up against that.
closewith · 28m ago
> Though empires are out of fashion , British colonies universally benefited from the British empire.
That's not at all true. There are many examples, but no need to look farther afield than Ireland, which has not yet recovered from the deliberate genocide of the Irish famine.
The island of Ireland had not yet reached the population it held pre-famine, and if Ireland had grown at the rate of its neighbours, it would now being closing in on 25 million+ instead of the ~7 million across the island.
> The ones who are thriving today owe a huge debt of gratitude, and the languishing ones are that way because they decided not to continue the British tradition.
Britain owes a debt to its colonies. The colonies owe nothing to it, except contempt.
> The 20th century decline of the British empire is one of civilization's worst failures, on par with the decline of the Roman Empire.
In a comment brimming with ignorance, this becomes absurd. The dissolution of the British empire is the great victory of the 20th century. A victory of human rights, decency, and even off the British population, who are disposable to the empire as foreign "subjects" were.
On Friday 21st March 2025, the sun will set on the British "Empire" - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41957938 - Oct 2024 (23 comments)
When (if ever) did the Sun set on the British Empire? - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40631309 - June 2024 (41 comments)
It's not the first time a TLD has been removed; a couple of TLDs have been scrapped in the past when countries split up or got merged (chiefly in the aftermath of the cold war)[0]. For the most part, those domain names weren't in heavy use. There's also a few high-profile failures of removal: .uk was used instead of .gb in the early days of the internet before 2-letter codes were standardized to ISO, which is why the UK uses .uk instead of .gb (an attempt to scrap .uk was attempted, but failed almost immediately). .su also should have been scrapped ages ago, but because the Russian entity that manages it refuses to cooperate with ICANN, the TLD is still in use, from what I can tell just because they don't want to risk breaking the internet.
The .su TLD is the one with the closest amount of use as the .io TLD has today. That said, it's unlikely that the entity currently managing .io (a hedge fund if I'm not mistaken) has the legal muscle to force ICANN to keep it in the list, the way the Russian domain name registrar has been able to.
[0]: See a more detailed explanation here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Country_code_top-level_domain#...
(original url sometimes times out)
I think I saw it in the fortune file first.
Hard to think otherwise as they have the same king.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_affair
“”” Charles III, by the Grace of God, King of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and of His other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith. “””
So in my head canon, he is the King of the UK and Canada … the same person and the same office. Ie there is no King of Canada officially - the title is always King of UK (first) and of other places as well … in short whilst Canada has a King, there is not a title “King Of Canada” that he can hold as well as holding “king of UK”
Reference: https://www.canada.ca/en/canadian-heritage/services/crown-ca...
""" Queen Elizabeth II was the first of Canada's sovereigns to be proclaimed separately as Queen of Canada in 1953, when a Canadian law, the Royal Style and Titles Act, formally conferred upon her the title of "Queen of Canada". The proclamation reaffirmed the monarch’s role in Canada as independent of the monarch’s role in the United Kingdom and other Commonwealth realms. """
So only Elizabeth and Charles.
Should you care, here’s the link to correct Wikipedia:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_monarchs
The Governor General has in recent times prorogued Parliament when the Prime Minister asked them to. Ie. "This is politically nasty. Let's hit the pause button and come back when things are better and we're not about to be ejected from power..." And that has been politically controversial. Historically the Governor General just says yes because they want to avoid playing a political role at all (ie. preserving this convention that the Monarchy is really just a decoration of our government).
In practice Taylor Swift might have more.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_Australian_constitution...
In principle this power still exists. Whether Charles could pull off the same trick depends on the political situation on the ground.
I'm old enough to remember it and remember a statement from the palace saying something like "The Queen is watching events in Australia with interest" but I don't think she took an active part.
I quick search reveals this. I don't know this site but if true then some letters seem to confirm the above. She told the GG to obey the Australian Constitution.
https://constitution-unit.com/2020/07/16/palace-letters-show...
Whenever the British Empire is mentioned, I involuntary have to think of this German slogan from WW1. The only military memorabilia I own carries this slogan. I came across the slogan in a meme featuring Donald Duck and found the vignette on a flea market.
History doesn't repeat, but I think we're well into the realm of history rhyming here.
You can't be serious.
This reminds me of an interview with the CCP spokesperson from last year when asked about how China sees the UK (timestamped): https://youtu.be/8jZ0KTRUgpU?t=240
They mostly don’t have a seat because they don’t actually want one - and China would get nervous. it pays better and is more stable for them to be the outsider.
As for the Chagos islands, it's by far the best thing to get rid of them. There's no value at all and a lot of trouble keeping them.
I heard a Hong Kong national argue that that the end of the agreement should have seen Hong Kong go back to Taiwan, not China, because the initial agreement wasn’t made with the CCP and the Taiwanese government is closer to being the natural successor.
I can only begin to imagine the shit storm this would have caused.
In a similar vein, Russia should never have got USSR's UN security council seat.
Now that's an interesting counterfactual. The legal case was weak, and certainly they didn't have to on account of Russia's strength. Other than nukes, which a few non-SC members have, a lot of mostly empty land area and a space programme, Russia's credentials as a superpower aren't great when it's not the same country as Ukraine and central Asia and doesn't also hold sway over Warsaw Pact countries. Not sure China necessarily saw them as a friendly counterweight to the West then either. On the other hand, they had the other CIS states all insisting Russia was the true continuation of the USSR, no objections and they probably thought that it would help Russia become friends. Does the world look vastly different if Russia goes through an application process to rejoin the UN and doesn't get a seat on the Security Council? Perhaps not, but I'm sure Mearsheimer et al would explain that every act of violence Russia undertook afterwards was a natural response to it...
China is currently the largest or 2nd largest buyer of UK Pork.
Although I won't be surprised in 2-3 years time China will use it as leverage. As they did with Denmark.
And it is not that China wants any of these either. UK is currently desperately trying to increase its export ( without success )
If the UK had stuck with Truss, that mightn’t have been true. She was opening up new pork markets.
> Last time I checked, most countries today, aside from Russia, aren't in the business of invading other countries and expanding territory
How about Israel that the UK is arming? Though in the case of the UK it is contracting.
> The UK will be just fine - it's doing as much as any other western country to keep it's relevance.
That's reassuring.
Do you mean:
a) agency
b) influence
c) something else?
Is the idea that Chagossian repatriation now becomes a Mauritian problem? Had the British been taking that problem particularly seriously?
Or more to do with the British not really wanting to be caught between the Americans and increasingly assertive regional powers who may be annoyed by the Americans’ stronghold there?
Again the chagos islands, I know very little about them, but I understand that the islanders themselves hate the deal. And the UK is offering a whole lot of money to keep the military bases they had for free. You can say it was a matter of international law but Mauritius claim to the island is laughable, they are more than 1000 miles away. Also the way the deal was presented as a step away from colonialism etc just feels wrong. Timid apologetics isn't a good way to advance the UKs interest, nor is it helpful for the rest of the world for the UK to be weak and ineffective. Just look at how they helped Ukraine. Again the politicians have no will or national pride to stand up for the UKs interests and it's a shame.
Do we know that? Presumably there were negotiations. Normally both parties in a negotiation start at extreme opposites and make their way somewhere in the middle. Obviously we don’t/won’t know every detail but I don’t know you can say they didn’t try. Simple reality is that the UK wasn’t holding a lot of cards in that negotiation.
Look at the one month Treasury bill to see the actual situation.
Maybe 20 years from now, you will be on a resort laughing at the treasury bill rates of 2025 and compare their accuracy to pets.com.
These journalists do not say that Britain is bankrupt. Their article was arbitrarily cited by someone else to support his claim about Britain.
You mean follow the treaty they signed ages ago?
Whether that would have protected the people of Hong Kong is another matter. I think at the time people were still optimistic about the direction China was taking and they might have thought China would be a democracy by 2047.
The argument that it shouldn’t have gone to the CCP was one I heard from someone who lived there.
As to how they think that has anything to do with their points, it doesn’t of course - and the UK agreed, which is why they left. Also, because it’s not like the UK had any other choice.
Or that it’s ever been about ‘protecting’ anyone when the British Crown fights anyone over territory? As compared to asserting ownership?
Not to mention the UK nearly lost it’s fight with Argentina - it wouldn’t even be pissing in the wind to go to war with China over Hong Kong.
They lost 6 ships (including 2 destroyers and 2 frigates), 24 helicopters, and 10 fighters + 255 KIA in the debacle. If the french hadn’t disabled those missiles, it would have been an even bigger mess. Do you think the UK gov’t wants to admit they got saved by the French?
If Argentina had their act even a little more together, or had even a little more commitment, there is nothing the UK could have done about it - except maybe nuke Buenos Aires. Which would probably have been a step too far, even for Thatcher.
Argentina was expecting zero resistance and got embarrassed they lost ships and soldiers too, and pulled out because it was making the Argentinian gov’t look bad.
But it was also really embarrassing for the UK. They had more losses there than they did fighting the Gulf War alongside the US.
In fact, since Northern Ireland, it took Afghanistan to even come close - and that was over a period of 10 years compared to ~ 6 months. [https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6605529d91a32...]
No comments yet
I think the people that lived there in 1997 would absolutely want to go back to British rule. But you have to remember that it's been nearly 30 years since it went to Chinese rule. All the young people there prefer Chinese rule, because they grew up with schools teaching them that the British were bad and the Chinese were good.
And at the same time, the most pro-British people left, either going to the USA or Canada, or actually taking advantage of the UKs right-to-return programs and going to the UK itself.
So if you asked the people who lived there today, they majority say they prefer Chinese rule.
My prediction is that they will no longer operate as an SEZ within the decade and will be folded fully into China.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/28/i-was-so-naive...
But more importantly, it's more complicated than just China good/bad:
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2023/12/05/how-peopl...
However what that shows is that the majority of adults in HK (74%) feel an attachment to China, and in the meantime China is making it illegal to disagree with them.
You make me feel old
>In June 2019, millions took to the streets again in massive pro-democracy protests.
This was only 6 years ago.
>Hong Kongers ages 35 and older are more likely than their younger counterparts to feel very close to China.
That's the exact opposite of what you claim.
I agree they'll likely succeed in the end but they have not yet made HK just another part of China.
I watched the changeover live on TV in my 20s. :)
>> Hong Kongers ages 35 and older are more likely than their younger counterparts to feel very close to China.
> That's the exact opposite of what you claim.
No, it's not. What I said was young people have been growing up with propaganda, and of the people who were there for the changeover and remember it (people over 35), the ones who don't like China have left the country because they could. The ones under 35 (well technically 28) don't have that option, because you had to be born before the changeover to get the British citizenship, which is what lets you easily move to Canada, Australia, and lots of other places.
Which would mean that those over 35 that are still there are the ones that were already pro-China. So that tracks with the data.
In other words, China is indoctrinating the youth and the people who have to option to leave and hate China are leaving, so only the people that love China or were indoctrinated by it are left behind.
But even then, less than 50% of people under 35 call themselves Chinese (not even both Hong Konger and Chinese). And half of the adults call China a major threat, 22% a minor threat. Those are pretty bad numbers for indoctrination.
If they really really wanted too, they could have tried to go the USA route and kick both parties out and be independent. But there is approximately zero chance they would have succeeded, eh?
Am I the only one getting this ?
The 20th century decline of the British empire is one of civilization's worst failures, on par with the decline of the Roman Empire.
My grandparents and their generation were all born in Ireland, and had a very different outlook than the people who remained and folks you talk to today there. People just want to live their lives.
I wonder what the aggregate sentiment of colonialism is in former British colonies.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_genocide
That's not at all true. There are many examples, but no need to look farther afield than Ireland, which has not yet recovered from the deliberate genocide of the Irish famine.
The island of Ireland had not yet reached the population it held pre-famine, and if Ireland had grown at the rate of its neighbours, it would now being closing in on 25 million+ instead of the ~7 million across the island.
> The ones who are thriving today owe a huge debt of gratitude, and the languishing ones are that way because they decided not to continue the British tradition.
Britain owes a debt to its colonies. The colonies owe nothing to it, except contempt.
> The 20th century decline of the British empire is one of civilization's worst failures, on par with the decline of the Roman Empire.
In a comment brimming with ignorance, this becomes absurd. The dissolution of the British empire is the great victory of the 20th century. A victory of human rights, decency, and even off the British population, who are disposable to the empire as foreign "subjects" were.