if they want an open selection then it is effectively de facto independence
Why? Beijing retains control of defence and foreign policy, not to mention that it controls the borders, energy supplies, etc.
In other words, any HK leader must be subservient to the central government.
If Hong Kong is to thrive, it needs someone who is willing to champion the city's interests and, if necessary, say to Beijing "your policy is hurting my city, you need to change it". 90% of the time you can get a mutually beneficial agreement, but sometimes you have to be willing to have an argument.
If Beijing can't handle that it should just appoint a governor and do away with the Chief Executive position. At least then it would be honest about the sort of government it wants Hong Kong to have.
The same goes for seeking an overthrow of the CCP
I don't know how a more inclusive nomination system is going to lead to the fall of the CCP. It's a bit like opposing women's rights because some women are male-hating ultra-feminists.
If HK could have framed its desire for reform within the context of supporting the central government and willing to operate within its red lines then I suspect things would have been different.
If Beijing's red line is that it gets to decide who is a "suitable" candidate, then where is the room to compromise? What
is Beijing willing to give ground over?
The problem is that HK was always seen as a bastion of potential subversion, for better or for worse.
Maybe Beijing could do with updating its view? Just like the anti-women view most men used to have? Or stop seeing it as a "you either love China and the Party, or you hate both" game?
Basically, if they really want open selection, there needs to be fundamental limits on the degree to which they can challenge Beijing on, i.e.: there needs to be limits.
Regarding all of the things you listed, Hong Kong either has no legal ground to do it and/or Beijing could easily stop it. Hong Kong can't declare independence just as Shanghai can't. Even Scotland needed Westminster to authorise a referendum on independence.
Similarly, Hong Kong can't stop the end of the one country, two system policy because it was written into law by the UK and China.
As for challenging CCP rule or helping anti-government movements in China, arguably the latter already happens. If either really started causing problems, Beijing could just send the troops in. Hell, it has the manpower, it could just use non-lethal force. Hong Kong doesn't have an army or even a militia.
You mean nations like Qatar, Brunei, Singapore, and the UAE?
You've listed three petro-state countries and a city-state (by the way I'll remember that you labelled Singapore an autocracy). Try again.
If that's not anti-Beijing, then what is?
Why is being scared of the unknown being "anti" anything?
Is that the best response you can come up with?
You're the one who made the assertion. Why can't you back it up with even a few examples?
No, because if Beijing vetoes an elected candidate, it will have to explain to the people of HK why their choice is not acceptable
Why does it have to tell them anything? Beijing doesn't have to answer to anyone.
There is nothing that says people who voted for a "pro-Beijing" committee candidate wouldn't vote for a "pro-democracy" legislator.
By such wildly different margins? Come on, that's not plausible.
That is the due process. Beijing cannot and does not have to debate every single counter-proposal raised by the public.
You said in your last post:
Finally, Beijing refuses to budge from its position because the alternative proposed by OC is utter nonsense.
So again, I ask you to explain why the various alternatives, not just the Occupy suggestion, are all "nonsense".
