Which man KEKED your country?

UP

Bill Mcmahon or Paul Keating

Wilson did nothing wrong, Edward Heath got us into the EU dooming us to decades of cuckoldry

1 dude with a mighty mustache made my country great. Two dudes with smaller mustaches ruined him cause they wanted to be him.

He continued our shameful withdrawal from Africa and stabbed one of our most loyal colonies, Rhodesia, in the back

thatcher is bae

>peace and love bro we need tolerance (and to flood the country with cheap labour)

she got rid of Hong Kong and let European integration go on until it was too late for her to stop

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Kissinger

>rid of Hong Kong

>implying Thatcher just got rid of Hong Kong
>implying she didn't give it back to its rightful Chinese masters

>rightful
Since the Qing dynasty collapsed that meant the agreement was limited to the residents of Hong Kong and they should have been granted full independence.

They would need to develop a national army to do this. I am sure Britain and Hong Kong could have reached an agreement on how to achieve that, probably involving a defensive pact suiting both Britain's and Hong Kong's desire for peace and stability while allowing Hong Kong full self-determination and limited expense on Britain's part.

Maggie handed them over to China as part of a wider goal of ensuring Deng's capitalist reforms succeed and keeping them separate from the Soviet Union.

I am not sure which would have been for the best, though I have my doubts that China would blame the US for Britain being uncooperative on Hong Kong and how much it would stymie progress.

>what is succession of states
PRC was the legal representative of China according to the UN and therefore treaties with China transferred to the PRC.
>implying the bongs can defend Hong Kong

China wasn't going to let Hong Kong become independent for nationalist reasons. If the talks failed, a war with China was very likely and there was no way for the bongs to win.

Gandhi.

Gandhi should have retired from politics after India gained it's independence. Reading up on history i realized that Nathuram Godse was right all along.

>If the talks failed, a war with China was very likely and there was no way for the bongs to win.
But that's wrong

How can bongs prevent China from achieving their objective of annexing Hong Kong?
They had no chance of a military victory. They didn't have enough trade at the time to make an embargo work. The US was unlikely to intervene because the cost would have been massive for the US and Hong Kong independence wouldn't benefit the US at all and may sway China against the US again.
Face it you delusional bong. You had no chance of keeping Hong Kong.

>How can bongs prevent China from achieving their objective of annexing Hong Kong?
Sorry lad but the impossible doesn't exist for us Brits

...

>not nuking China

...

>implying bongs have the capability to meaningfully nuke china
>implying china won't win a nuke exchange against the bongs

I will not only imply these things, I'll say them.

The UK had most of their nuclear weapons on submarines.

The PRC had most of them in land silos, with liquid fueling that removed most of their second strike capability. Even if one did get launched, most of their missiles couldn't reach the UK.

>SSBMs can out nuke ICBMs
>this is what bong delusion is like

Not all ICBMs are created equal.

In the late 90s, China had a relatively anemic nuclear arsenal.

Even today, they only have a few dozen warheads capable of reaching burgerstan.

The UK is a lot closer to China than the US.
In a nuclear exchange, subs have a pitiful payload compared to ICBMs making the bongs have similar if not less capability than the chinks as the bongs have no land based ICBMs , relying on their SSBMs and bomber force.

Plus with the large land area disparity, UK had no chance in a nuclear exchange.