>>46262
No, it says yes.


>>46263
Why would that be evidence that there was no compromise? That makes no sense, so according to you the west would only complain if China didn't compromise their sovereignty?

You can call it what you want but Taiwan won't see it that way. Taiwan is not going to think 'ohh, these pro-democracy protestors were clearly a colour revolution, well that's quite alright for China to send troops and under no circumstances could I ever see that as a pretext and in no way could I ever see them using the same pretext to send troops to Taiwan if we ever unified'.

Again, you can call it what you want you can say Chian's hand was force, you can say the vetting law is aimed at politicians aiming to rejoin Britain, you can claim it's a response to foreign collusion and colour revolutions, whatever. The fact is that Beijing now has the ability to dictate who is actually in power in Hong Kong and therefore what path Hong Kong will take, that goes against the system you agree that they agreed to.