News that Hong Kong’s British National (overseas) passport holders could soon have a path to move to the UK and gain citizenship is a good first step to help people escape growing Chinese authoritarianism in that great city. But it is nowhere near enough: there are only 300,000 current BN(O) passport holders out of Hong …
Yeah I guess the main thing is it has to be fully consensual or you risk ending up with problems like Israel and building a completely new city from scratch overnight has its challenges especially if it's residents to be are coming from a high standard of living like Hong Kong.
Just geographically somewhere in Indonesia or off the cost of BC would be ideal for trade and sustainability but realistically Taiwan is the only one that has a chance politically of coping with a million or more over some 1-3 year period.
I love the idea of charter cities, but I've don't understand why the idea has never gone anywhere. It seems like a great way to bring wealth, development, and good governance to the underdeveloped regions of the world, provided the cities can be kept free of the meddling of neighboring autocrats and criminals. The case for building them in first world countries seems a little more dubious, as if it's just an elaborate tax avoidance scheme.
A large part of Hong Kong’s allure is that it grants Investors access to the Chinese market while also having the rule of law. I fail to see how that could be replicated in Essex.
Also, I appreciate the neoliberal spirit that hundreds of thousands of people would move around half of the world like that, but that’s never going to happen.
What the government should do (and apparently is doing) would be to encourage immigration from Hong Kong (and in general, but I digress) and help them settle in existing cities. Maybe ease zoning laws a bit so they can build their own homes more easily, if you’re at it.
Can a man not dream!?
On a serious note I’m up for this too, as someone commented there’s a lot of brown sites in places such as Manchester and Birmingham that can be built on.
It wouldn’t be the first mass exodus to the UK however, the Windrush generation being a recent example.
Some of it was. Amongst the intellectual side however there was an arguably global vision as envisaged by those such as Johnson. A lot of their reasoning behind leaving was the ability to negotiate our own trade deals freely etc.
I was against Brexit but I hope this is the route we go down, no point arguing about staying in or out now, we're out and we should make the most of the new opportunities we have as a result.
I personally believe this is our chance to start becoming much more closely knit with the Commonwealth, something I believe has been neglected due to the EU.
Agreed, I was very much in favour of staying in the EU and still am, but it’s too late now.
But when we joined the EEC we did cut off much of our previous Commonwealth trade, especially with countries like New Zealand who we essentially backstabbed by joining.
Are you British or Commonwealth? Not to undermine you but that’s a very simplistic and incorrect assessment. Brits and Kiwis didn’t at the time, and hardly now view one-another as foreign, they were only granted complete autonomy from UK Parliament fairly recently and we share the same head of state, extremely close cultural ties etc. New Zealand was devastated at the time as we completely turned our backs on them by joining the EEC, they were completely reliant on us for trade.
The relationship between CANZUK is far, far closer than pretty much any other group of countries in the world. We’re extremely closely bonded and have important obligations to one-another.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independence_of_New_Zealand “Irrespective of any legal developments, some New Zealanders still perceived themselves as a distinctive outlying branch of the United Kingdom until at least the 1970s. This attitude began to change when the United Kingdom joined the European Community in 1973 and abrogated its preferential trade agreements with New Zealand, and gradual nationality and societal changes further eroded the relationship.”
Yes I am British, I just don't hold sentimental attachment for an empire that stopped mattering in real terms in the 1950s. Shared culture does not outweigh economic realities. As pointed out in [this](https://youtu.be/jFl3OaBi8FY) video, all the CANZUK countries do far more trade with their neighbours and the US than each other, and the US has just a strong cultural influence over the Anglosphere than any commonwealth country.
I mean Ok, let’s take the Highlands as an example - does anyone think there is a reasonable chance of millions of people, including Hongkongers who think 14 degrees is cold, relocating to an isolated part of Scotland with extremely poor communications links to the rest of Britain, never mind the world.
If something like this is to have a non-negligible chance of success then it isn’t enough to say “there, that’s a city now”. It needs roads, sewage, water, electricity, heating, streetlights, broadband, and probably an international airport before it starts to look attractive to anyone.
No cities were built in the U.K. after WWII.
There were the New Towns. The first wave of these were mostly expansions of existing small towns into towns of about 100,000 people.
The second wave in the Sixties were slightly more ambitious, but they were also to an even greater extent based on existing settlements. Peterborough for example already had a cathedral. The only one that was really “new” and also a significant settlement was Milton Keynes, and even that was built on several existing villages.
I’m not saying that you couldn’t set up a new city if you wanted to, but it certainly wouldn’t be as simple as drawing a circle around a bit of the countryside and declaring that all planning regulations are scrapped in that circle. Never mind that the areas Bowman would probably actually suggest from looking at the population density map are national parks, AONBs, and SSSIs, or else they are estuaries and lakes.
>Why would they leave London for it?
Because london is a overpriced crime ridden shithole
>Is the UK that much of a loss outside of London that it can't invest in the places already there?
It has bren able yo for years london chooses not to
> Because london is a overpriced crime ridden shithole
So will the new place be.
>It has bren able yo for years london chooses not to
So the answer is "fuck you" to people who lived in shitholes and build a new city for people coming from Hong Kong? Great.
> I don't imagine those houses will be cheap for very long.
Seriously. If there's well paid jobs and houses that are cheap, why would only young people go there? Why wouldn't older people (even in their 30's upwards) take advantage... and just like magic, demand forces a rise in cost.
I love HK ( live there ) but there are serious social and economic issues underpinning society as a result of their economic model. Think apartments the size of parking spaces costing 400k gbp, think of families living in 400 sq ft, think of extensive monopolies and duopolies, think of “cage” homes, think of poverty and lack of opportunity. UK would have to accept a significant underclass to go with a HK model. HK gini greter than 50 ( highest in developed world ) vs UK circa 30. Dont build HK in UK but do welcome all freedom loving ( ie not CCP supporters ) HKers.
But it is nowhere near enough: there are only 300,000 current BN(O) passport holders out of Hong Kong’s 7.5 million residents (though many more are eligible), and many have family members who they could not leave behind because people born after 1997 cannot get them.
The real solution is to found a new city and open it up to all Hong Kongers and Brits who want to move there. A Hong Kong 2.0, right here in the British Isles.
I don't think anybody has.
Literally nobody. Idk what to think of Brexit except "something's broken here idk how to solve it, Eh, I'll just move somewhere else if it gets to broken" (Impressive patriotism ikr, at least I won't be competing for visas , if it gets too fucked because Irish dual-national)
Most Leavers haven't discovered yet that politics of hate and division don't actual work when running a country.
it's like the entire affair was meaningless and is only gouig make half the country feel shit while the other half sort of just wonders why everybody is less healthy and blaming the fact that stuff costs more on migrants.
I'm not exactly a fan of this - or indeed any plan involving globalist investment as a pillar of the economy - but what I really don't understand is why this would require the creation of a new city; London basically already fits the bill of a financial hub already, so why not just make the city (ie the city proper) its own little charter area rather than build a new one?
1. Housing stock, London is crowded and overpriced.
2. Balance of the UK. We are already hugely London centric, making that even more true is undesirable.
3. Devolution, any 'New Hong Kong" wants to have thing's like bilingual signage. Some autonomy like wales. The more ambitious versions of this seek a hong kong city state as a new home nation.