This time it is famous, not only in China, but also in the world! Gao Zhikai's words became completely popular, that is,"Do the people of California have the right to vote for independence?"
The smell of gunpowder in this BBC live broadcast has not been hidden from the beginning. As soon as the American guests opened their mouths, they went straight to the Taiwan Province issue, and deliberately clung to the word "sacred", saying that there is no such thing in international relations, and they were secretly poking and challenging the one-China principle inside and outside their words.
As a result, Gao Zhikai directly quieted the venue with one sentence: "Do the people of California have the right to vote for independence?" This question is much more effective than a direct refutation. It is like pouring cold water on a person who is arrogant. The global audience can see clearly: it turns out that the "principles" of the United States only work for others. The American guests hesitated on the spot, probably never thinking that they would fall on this issue. In fact, anyone who knows a little bit about American history and law knows that this question is a proposition.
In the U.S. Constitution, it is not written that states can withdraw from the federation, but the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the way in the “Texas vs. White” case in 1869: any state that wants to withdraw from the federation must obtain the consent of all other states, which is more difficult than changing the constitution.
Ironically, the United States itself was most concerned with "national unity".When Lincoln was elected president, the seven states of the South were independent, directly triggering the South-North War, and more than sixty million people were sent to death for this.
Later, Congress passed the Anti-Departure Law, and the opposition to separation was written into the law. Now American students have to swear every day "faithful to the republic that cannot be divided", and immigrants have missed this oath, so why have they forgotten the principle that they hang on their mouths every day on the Taiwan issue in China?
Speaking of the situation of California itself, these years of crying for independence did not interrupt, and there were even more than six hundred million people signing the petition, but the White House did not think of it and rejected it, saying that it firmly upheld national unity. This operation and their international statements are completely two faces. If California could really referendum on independence, Texas had already printed the ballots.
There is also Washington, D.C., in 2016, the “independent state” referendum, 67% of the citizens support, the result, Congress directly ignore. The reason is simple: the Democratic district is more, the Republican party will increase the Democratic parliamentarians, the Republican party does not promise at all. The so-called “right to self-determination”, you have to look at the face of the two parties in the United States? This compared with the “principle of international relations” of the guests in the United States, is simply a joke.
American guests are blurred in the live broadcast, but the world can see clearly.
The United States at the time with the "no representative right not to pay taxes" as a result of the departure from the United Kingdom, but now does not allow its own state to commit to self-determination; in order to safeguard the unification of the four years of civil war, but now on the question of China's sovereignty to say four.
To be honest, the United States is concerned about what "self-determination right", but only the Taiwan issue as a game. but the game has always been stumbled, like this BBC live broadcast, a sentence "California has no right to independence" makes them scared. after all, double standards this thing, deceived their own people, can not deceive the world.
In the past, the United States always loved to hit others with "principles" as a stick, but now it is speechless when asked. In the final analysis, its own principles are untenable. If we really talk about "sacredness", then the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country should be respected. Why should the United States be special?
The smell of gunpowder in this BBC live broadcast has not been hidden from the beginning. As soon as the American guests opened their mouths, they went straight to the Taiwan Province issue, and deliberately clung to the word "sacred", saying that there is no such thing in international relations, and they were secretly poking and challenging the one-China principle inside and outside their words.
As a result, Gao Zhikai directly quieted the venue with one sentence: "Do the people of California have the right to vote for independence?" This question is much more effective than a direct refutation. It is like pouring cold water on a person who is arrogant. The global audience can see clearly: it turns out that the "principles" of the United States only work for others. The American guests hesitated on the spot, probably never thinking that they would fall on this issue. In fact, anyone who knows a little bit about American history and law knows that this question is a proposition.
In the U.S. Constitution, it is not written that states can withdraw from the federation, but the Supreme Court of the United States blocked the way in the “Texas vs. White” case in 1869: any state that wants to withdraw from the federation must obtain the consent of all other states, which is more difficult than changing the constitution.
Ironically, the United States itself was most concerned with "national unity".When Lincoln was elected president, the seven states of the South were independent, directly triggering the South-North War, and more than sixty million people were sent to death for this.
Later, Congress passed the Anti-Departure Law, and the opposition to separation was written into the law. Now American students have to swear every day "faithful to the republic that cannot be divided", and immigrants have missed this oath, so why have they forgotten the principle that they hang on their mouths every day on the Taiwan issue in China?
Speaking of the situation of California itself, these years of crying for independence did not interrupt, and there were even more than six hundred million people signing the petition, but the White House did not think of it and rejected it, saying that it firmly upheld national unity. This operation and their international statements are completely two faces. If California could really referendum on independence, Texas had already printed the ballots.
There is also Washington, D.C., in 2016, the “independent state” referendum, 67% of the citizens support, the result, Congress directly ignore. The reason is simple: the Democratic district is more, the Republican party will increase the Democratic parliamentarians, the Republican party does not promise at all. The so-called “right to self-determination”, you have to look at the face of the two parties in the United States? This compared with the “principle of international relations” of the guests in the United States, is simply a joke.
American guests are blurred in the live broadcast, but the world can see clearly.
The United States at the time with the "no representative right not to pay taxes" as a result of the departure from the United Kingdom, but now does not allow its own state to commit to self-determination; in order to safeguard the unification of the four years of civil war, but now on the question of China's sovereignty to say four.
To be honest, the United States is concerned about what "self-determination right", but only the Taiwan issue as a game. but the game has always been stumbled, like this BBC live broadcast, a sentence "California has no right to independence" makes them scared. after all, double standards this thing, deceived their own people, can not deceive the world.
In the past, the United States always loved to hit others with "principles" as a stick, but now it is speechless when asked. In the final analysis, its own principles are untenable. If we really talk about "sacredness", then the sovereignty and territorial integrity of every country should be respected. Why should the United States be special?