Only the New Territories were leased.

>The colony faced an uncertain future as the end of the New Territories lease approached, and Governor Murray MacLehose raised the question of Hong Kong's status with Deng Xiaoping in 1979.[84] Diplomatic negotiations with China resulted in the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, in which the United Kingdom agreed to transfer the colony in 1997 and China would guarantee Hong Kong's economic and political systems for 50 years after the transfer.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hong_Kong

So what are you debating?

> Hong Kong was leased to Britain till 1997.

This is not accurate. The Hong Kong Island and the Kowloon Peninsula were ceded to Britain in perpetuity, not leased.

Oh I didn't know that, I did remember that it was not feasible for Britain to keep HKI and KP after the lease of the NT ended, but I wasn't aware it was ceded in perpetuity.

While these facts are important, they sound like Taiwan is unequivocally part of the PRC. But that's probably not what people in Taiwan or many western nations would say.

- Taiwan clearly has the outward appearance of a full-fledged nation

- There are (few) countries that have recognized it as a sovereign nation

- Taiwan maintains some form of diplomatic relations, and Nancy Pelosi's recent visit was a very public sign of that

- Taiwan and the PRC have been at war in the past

Some might take this to say that the official status is contested.

> they sound like Taiwan is unequivocally part of the PRC

No, they sound like Taiwan is part of China, something the entire world and Taiwan itself officially recognizes.

It's like the US had a civil war and the losing side flees to Hawaii and in 2090 we still arguing whether it is part of not of US or should it declare independence.

> No, they sound like Taiwan is part of China, something the entire world and Taiwan itself officially recognizes.

That presumes the "official" position is the genuine position, which is often not the case.

With regards to Taiwan, "official" positions are often lies tied in knots to appease Mainland China's sensibilities.

There's an endless number of internal and international reasons beyond appeasing the PRC.

Such as?

It is the basis of US-Taiwan relations as a starter.

> It is the basis of US-Taiwan relations as a starter.

Only in the context of the PRC. The reality of US-Taiwan relations would be much clearer if it was not PRC policy to sever diplomatic relationship with any country that recognizes Taiwan.

On the topic of Taiwan, it's a mistake to reason about de facto relationships from de jure "official positions." Basically, the "official positions" are lies, and the actual positions are not directly stated.

> It's like the US had a civil war and the losing side flees to Hawaii and in 2090 we still arguing whether it is part of not of US or should it declare independence.

That actually sounds like a very plausible counterfactual to someone outside the US.

It was, but China also agreed to leave them along for a long time afterward and let them be relatively separate, and we all saw how that went. The CCP is not to be believed unless you have nuclear weapons aimed at them.