>>46249 >It's already been compromised No, I think they were successful. The very fact that the 5 eyes reacted by throwing a fit may be offered as evidence that there was no compromise of sovereignty
>sending in troops to crack down on internal political matters tends to do that. First, HK is a chinese city with a separate administration (political, financial, etc.), not an independent city-state or anything like that, so internal matters may rightfully concern the national government. Second, calling them just political matters when they had a months-long period of civil unrest, stoked from within by known secessionists (including some politicians and oligarchs making overtures to foreign countries that openly consider china an adversary), and from without by known nurturers of "colour revolutions", is disingenuous. Given such conditions, it would have been reckless for any govt not to involve itself, especially after seeing that the acquiescence of the local authorities to the initial demands was met with escalation (typical of colour revolution scenarios)
>Which is against the two party system as well. Continuing from above, how the basic law is interpreted and implemented is decided by lawmakers in beijing. Obviously, the law introducing the vetting system for HK legislative nominees, which is probably aimed at some politicians campaigning for independence or even re-joining britain (Lol), was deemed in line with it. Now, did they really need such a system? Could not different, more subtle means to pressure the most hardcore anti-china elements have been found? Perhaps. Does the vetting system contravene "the spirit" of the communique? Well, the 5 eyes and those campaigning for independence might think so, but this cannot be extricated from their anti-china agenda. Moreover, the communique, its "spirit", and the basic law are different things, and if they really wanted to avoid this they should not have forced beijing's hand. As I said, they could have done this (legally and without breaking non-existing "promises") at any time they wanted since the return of HK. But they only did so when pushed by independence/anti-china forces colluding with foreign entities known for fostering "colour revolutions"
In any case, what will matter in the end is how or if HK citizens adapt to it. Judging by the most recent election, while at least 1.3M seem onboard, by-and-large they remain unconvinced. However, there is an important caveat: the vast majority of the "oppositionist" candidates did not participate, not for being rejected but because they refused to submit their candidateship for various reasons. The most hardcore presumably because they expect to be rejected anyway. Then some among the so-called "pandemocratic" opposition refused on ideological grounds, rejecting the modification to the electoral system. Others would actually participate but they currently face heavy criticism by their more hardened peers and voters who want to keep them in line to increase pressure on beijing, and this works because keeping "face" is pretty important for one's social status in china.
This is why I said it will take time to see how it turns out. If economy and social development in HK remain stable or improve, then it's reasonable to expect more people to reconsider their stance as time goes by
