Yesterday we commented on Nick Clegg’s press conference in which he launched the first phase of the manifesto.
We did not then cover the comments he subsequently made about the visit by the Chinese Premier to the UK.
Nick is quoted:
We can’t ignore the large-scale and systematic human rights abuses which still continue in China to this day [and] the very widespread use of the death penalty.
We have seen economic transformation on a scale possibly unheard of in the modern world where millions of people have become economically emancipated but where they are still politically shackled to a doctrine which is a one-party state communist doctrine which is the antithesis of the kind of open, democratic society that I believe in.
It certainly doesn’t mean that we should somehow commercially sever our ties because in the long run my view is that commercial prosperity in China, economic transformation in China will lead to an ever increasing pressure for social and political emancipation as well. That doesn’t mean we can’t in a respectful but firm way, as the prime minister did when he was in China recently, point out that we remain deeply deeply concerned about the very large scale abuse of human rights that still occur.
In response, Michael Fallon, the Conservative business minister, said that human rights should not be allowed to “get in the way” of growing trade links.
According to the report, “Downing Street indicated that the prime minister would choose different language.”
* Mary Reid is a contributing editor on Lib Dem Voice. She was a councillor in Kingston upon Thames, where she is still very active with the local party, and is the Hon President of Kingston Lib Dems.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Violent Bonham Carter features on Fake or Fortune?
Have resignations led to a rethink?
High Fell leaflet watch (2)
Robert Doyle
Peter Martin
Simon
Ben Austin
Matt Wardman
11 Comments
Hmmm. Surely the biggest issue we need to think about is the fact that the Chinese government is going to be providing us with our nuclear power in the coming years. Are we really happy to have so much of our energy supply dependent on foreign governments whose interests may be very different from our own?
This to me would seem an absolutely classic area where the voice/influence of the UK on its own is going to be very limited indeed (as with the current Iraq crisis) and that the “voice” to which the Chinese government will listen is that of the leading nations of the EU (which, according to the Chinese Ambassador to the Court of St James in an interview with the ‘Guardian’ at the weekend, are now listed in the sequence, “Germany, France, the UK”). I also doubt you are going to get very indeed by simply denouncing en masse “large-scale and systematic human rights abuses which still continue in China to this day [and] the very widespread use of the death penalty”, but, instead, that what is needed is collaboration with other EU governments on specific cases/issues when the timing for raising these is right. Politics is the “art of the possible” and reading in today’s ‘Guardian’ about many millions of people in the UK feel that the ‘recovery’ is passing right by them, whatever is needed to attract investment, create long-term, well-paid jobs should be the unquestioned top priority for governmental action.
Well that told them!
Expect to see a withdrawal from Tibet and a public apology for Tiananmen Square now that your Dear Leader has really given them a piece of his mind.
The trouble with the Lib Dems is that although you are frightfully nice people on the whole you are so irredeemably wet.
And what on earth was this speech supposed to achieve apart from making you look utterly insignificant and ineffectual??
Check out the tweet to your right where the DPM cringingly says that apple crumble with thick custard was his favourite school dinner.
Since everyone knows that was at WESTMINSTER School you could call that rather a failed attempt to get down with the common man.
Cf Dulwich College educated Farage. 🙂
@Simon
“Check out the tweet to your right where the DPM cringingly says that apple crumble with thick custard was his favourite school dinner”
What an odd comment. I have this week’s Westminster school menu in front of me. NO apple crumble this week but Bakewell Tart, Lemon Drizzle cake , Sticky Toffee pudding and Jam sponge are all on offer this week – all with custard.
Hollow human rights rhetoric DPM Nick Clegg… which it begs the question… do we have to have a miniature 1989 like Tiananmen Square protest on a British Overseas Territory before the UK coalition government proactively exercises good governance legislation that overrules the right on Britain’s own overseas territories to discriminate against gender variant people with impunity?
Brenda Lana Smith R.af D.
Founder of “Stand up for Gender-Variant People’s Rights on Bermuda…”
https://www.facebook.com/groups/83427199552/
@simon
“The trouble with the Lib Dems is that although you are frightfully nice people on the whole….” That’s right. If I had wanted to join a party seething with hatred, xenophobia, despair and aiming to move forward to some “better yesterday”, in which people knew their place and Johnny Foreigner was locked out, I could well have gone elsewhere instead.
More trade with China is good for both countries but we have to remind ourselves & others that Chinas Government is a brutal & corrupt Dictatorship, sustained by violence & two, discredited, nineteenth century doctrines, Nationalism & Communism.
One of the reasons so many Chines Businesses want to invest here is to get away from their own State Machine.
10 quid says Clegg doesnt criticize US for their use of the death penalty the next time they have a state visit.
Paul
The nineteenth century Opium wars are not forgotten.The Chinese don’t need any lectures from you.
Two of the main players in the Chinese State visit to the UK are the China National Nuclear Corporation and China General Nuclear Power Group.
Nick Clegg talks human rights but walks the walk of the nuclear industry.
Edward Davey signs deals with the Chinese State and the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation to provide them with subsidies, which is against the Liberal Democrat policy agreed as recently as last autumn’s conference. It is even in breach of The Coalition Agreement.
As a reminder as to what our party policy, the following is helpful —
MP urges no subsidy for nuclear power – E & T Magazine
The government should stick to its Coalition Agreement promise that new nuclear power should receive no public subsidy, a Lib Dem MP has said.
Martin Horwood warned MPs that he did now know of a single nuclear power station anywhere in the world which had been completed on time and on budget without public subsidy.
The MP for Cheltenham raised concerns over the transparency of negotiations currently ongoing between DECC (Department of Energy and Climate Change) and new nuclear suppliers to fix the strike price in advance of legislation on energy market reform.
He urged the government to “pause” the process so that the Public Accounts Committee could examine whether the contract for difference being offered for new nuclear power generation offered genuine value for money.
While the use of subsidies, he argued, was “justified” for renewables, the Coalition Agreement in May 2010 promised the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided that they received no public subsidy.
Speaking during a Commons debate on the issue, he said: “But wouldn’t it be extraordinary if into this exciting young, diverse and competitive energy market we found that a 56-year-old freeloader, a tailgater left over from another era was trying to slip in unnoticed and pick up all the same kind of advantages and support?
“Wouldn’t it be even more extraordinary if that old free loader was not even represented by a diversity of competitive companies but just one or two?
“And even more extraordinary still, if the most significant of those turned out to be the state nationalised energy supplier of another country already subsidised by their own taxpayers, but that is precisely what is happening with the nuclear industry.
“And what is more the level of support, the precise contract for difference and the strike price for specific energy sources are being negotiated behind closed doors as we speak before the relevant legislation has even passed through this House.”
Horwood warned consumers would be hit by any such public subsidy.
He said: “The request in the motion is modest, it is not for the instant abandonment of nuclear power, it’s not for the overturning of government energy policy, far from it, it is just for a pause, for the referral of the strike price negotiation to the Public Accounts Committee, other select committees or to an independent panel of experts would be equally acceptable as I said they can sit in private if there are issues of commercial sensitivity.
“On the face of it Electricite de France are trying to pull a fast one on British energy bill payers, taking a subsidy designed for clean, green, new, emerging competitive technologies with falling prices and claiming it for a 56-year-old industry with precious little competition and a continuing history of spectacular cost over-runs for which we stand to pick up the bill.”
Horwood also offered some supportive words to former Lib Dem energy secretary Chris Huhne, he said: “It may be a bit optimistic now, but I think and I hope that Chris Huhne’s time in this House will be remembered for the great work he did in shaping a greener future for the UK.”
Liberal Democrat deputy leader Simon Hughes (Bermondsey and Old Southwark) said he was opposed to nuclear power.
He said that had a comprehensive renewable energy programme been introduced across Europe, the government would not need to look at introducing nuclear power now.
He said: “All the time that I have been in the House, consistently, both the Liberal Party originally and then the Liberal Democrats, looked at the policy options for our energy supply and every time we have reviewed this we have concluded that there were very strong reasons for not going down the nuclear road – not for a theological reason, but for rational reasons which remain in my view as strong as ever.
“I am very clear that we have been enthusiastic supporters of wind power, both on-shore and off-shore and we have been enthusiastic of tidal power and we have been enthusiastic supporters of solar power.”
Hughes added: “The arguments for not going down the nuclear road are firstly it is hugely expensive and whatever the future might hold, the past shows that nuclear programmes have not been delivered on time or on budget around the world.
“Secondly, it has never been proved that we can deal with the waste in a secure and safe way indefinitely.
There may be adequately safe ways of holding the waste for a short (period of time) but there is no scientific evidence that shows that there is a permanent way of making sure that the waste can be both held and then disposed of.”
http://eandt.theiet.org/news/2013/feb/nuclear-subsidy.cfm