The absurdity of "One China, two interpretations"

Related post: 92 all over again

More details on the 92 consensus

A couple posts back I made this note:

... In May, Global Vision (遠見雜誌) showed nearly 70% support for the "One China, two interpretations" idea when it is defined as follows:

Our constitution states that "One China" is the ROC, while the Communist Party says "One China" is the PRC. Although we have different stances, as long as both sides can respect the other's principle, we can begin cross-strait discussions.

Now just to demonstrate how very insane that formula is, imagine if you put the same question to the Chinese leadership or the Chinese public -- when reversing some key points. Do you think you'd get a positive response?

Our constitution states that "One China" is the PRC, while the Taiwan authorities say "One China" is the ROC. Although we have different stances, as long as both sides can respect the other's principle, we can begin cross-strait discussions.

The question would never be asked, it would be even more absurd on the face of it, and it just goes to show how there is neither parity nor real agreement in this so called consensus.