Jimmy Lai Chee-ying, founder of Apple Daily, was sentenced to 20 years in prison on Feb 9. Lai was convicted of collusion with external forces to endanger national security under the Hong Kong SAR National Security Law and sedition under the Crimes Ordinance. Despite the British government and press denouncing it as “politically motivated”, we must ask ourselves: Would the owner of one of Britain’s biggest tabloids be allowed to openly meet with foreign leaders of countries deemed openly hostile to the United Kingdom? Would he be allowed to intervene in British politics on behalf of those foreign leaders?

The answer speaks for itself, and neither “freedom” nor “democracy” would influence the ultimate outcome or how it would be treated in the popular media. After all, the mass hysteria from the so-called “spy scandals” in the British media speaks for itself. Yet, in lieu of this ruling, the British government proceeded to denounce the ruling as “illegitimate” and “politically motivated”, and talked about “their commitment to Hong Kong”, with the assumption that Britain has a right to supersede the national security interests of China in the city.

In doing so, the British government announced that it would expand the British National (Overseas) scheme to include the adult children of BN(O) holders who were under 18 at the time of Hong Kong’s return to China in 1997. It framed this announcement in benevolent terms, framing it as providing a “safe haven” for Hong Kong people in Britain.

The statements from the British government manifest some incredible delusions of grandeur in respect to this matter, especially in regard to their own appeal, which is created from their affirmation they are “saviors” of the city against its parent country. But none of it holds up to scrutiny. First, the UK government’s numbers on this matter have always been ridiculously exaggerated. When the UK government first announced the scheme in 2020 they estimated that up to between 258,000 to 322,000 people would move to Britain.

The result after five years of implementation? Just 178,000, not even half their projected total. Again, they estimate another 28,000 will come to Britain as a result of this expanded scheme, but there is no reason to believe this is accurate. They believe that their ideology makes them an attractive option to Hong Kong people. While British nostalgia appeals to some, the reality is on a socioeconomic level, modern Britain is — and I say this as a British person — a massive stepdown from life in Hong Kong, and even those who have vacated Hong Kong to live in Albion realize this, with some having even returned to Hong Kong.

Why? First, Britain is in a state of severe economic stagnation, GDP growth is minimal at best, stagnant at worst, and British people’s incomes are on average shrinking. The country has been hit with years of high inflation. Large sections of the economy are lackluster, in-person retail performs poorly, and there has been an explosion in “shady businesses” filling up the empty high streets, which are constantly being raided by police.

Infrastructure is likewise deteriorating; the National Health Service, although free, is forced to ration healthcare as running costs exceed funding; meanwhile, crimes such as shoplifting, phone snatching, and a host of others, have increased to historical highs.

As someone who loves Britain very much, I find the decline of my country harrowing. Despite the surging opposition to immigration in national public opinion, people from Hong Kong stand as one of the most respected groups, but I would question the logic as to why you would want to leave one of Asia’s most iconic cities for a country in decline economically, especially when you are entering a country with a rising unemployment rate, and where you do not easily fit in to the job market. Many of those I have met in the UK on BN(O) visas — especially those in their 20s and 30s — are struggling and trying to get by from bit-part work.

So considering this, I believe Britain’s self-proclaimed “savior” status for the city is nonsense. The BN(O) scheme has always been a self-congratulatory set of false promises that is high on the iconography of our own proclaimed “heroism” for a city once under British colonial rule, offering a utopia of freedom and democracy, but low on substance when it comes to what kind of a better life it would actually deliver. They struggle to come to terms with the reality that most Hong Kong residents are not in fact banging on the doors, screaming to move to “Mother England”; but that life goes on, and there is no “state of terror” over the NSL, and despite its so-called love of “freedom”, Britain didn’t build a democracy in Hong Kong — and don’t let them forget that.

The author is a British political and international-relations analyst.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.