MPs raise extradition law and Umbrella Movement trial in UK Parliament debate ( Click link for video)
On 10 April 2019, the UK Parliament held a debate on the status of freedoms and the rule of law in Hong Kong. The debate was called by Alistair Carmichael, the Liberal Democrat MP for Orkney and Shetland, and 19 MPs from 6 political parties joined a wide-ranging discussion about the proposed amendments to the extradition law, the 9 April 2019 verdict of the trial of Umbrella Movement leaders, the status of the rule of law, and the implementation of the Sino-British Joint Declaration.
Mr Carmichael opened the debate with a comment on the Umbrella Movement trial, saying:
“The prosecution and now conviction of nine leaders of the Umbrella movement is the latest in a series of egregious human rights abuses by the Government in China. Using the criminal justice system and public order offences in this way is an abuse of fundamental and internationally protected human rights…”
Mark Field MP, the Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office responsible for Asia, refused to directly comment on the case, as sentencing is on 24th April, but referred to the Foreign Secretary’s recent statement that “on civil and political freedoms, Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy is being reduced.” He added that:
“It would be deeply concerning if the [Umbrella Movement trial] ruling discourages legitimate protest in future or discourages Hong Kong citizens from engaging in political activity.”
Mr Carmichael also highlighted wider concerns about Hong Kong’s rights and freedoms, arguing that:
“…these convictions are not an isolated incident. Over the past five years, we have seen the abduction of Hong Kong booksellers who published titles critical of China’s rulers; a political party banned; a senior Financial Times journalist, Victor Mallet, expelled from the city; and, now, proposals to change Hong Kong’s extradition laws to enable suspected criminals to be extradited from Hong Kong to mainland China, which is something that not only political activists but businesspeople fear, as they believe they could be in danger if the change goes ahead.”
Other MPs also highlighted concerns about Hong Kong’s proposed new extradition law. Helen Goodman MP, the Labour Shadow Minister for Asia; Fiona Bruce, the Conservative MP for Congleton; Geraint Davies, the Labour MP for Swansea West; and David Morris, the Conservative MP for Morecombe and Lunesdale, all raised this issue. Fiona Bruce MP, Chair of the Conservative Party Human Rights Commission, asked:
“Does the Minister agree that Hong Kong’s proposed new extradition laws, which may result in political activists and even international business people being in danger of extradition to mainland China, would fundamentally undermine Hong Kong’s autonomy, do irreparable damage to one country, two systems, and destroy business confidence in Hong Kong as a result? Is it not in all our interests, especially business, to defend Hong Kong’s freedom, autonomy and rule of law, which underpin its status as an open, international financial centre?”
In response, Mark Field MP said that:
“We are seriously considering the implications of these changes, including how the proposals might affect UK citizens and, indeed our current extradition arrangement with Hong Kong. Considerably more time should be given for a full and wide consultation with interested parties.
“…it is important that any changes to extradition arrangements from Hong Kong to mainland China must respect Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and cannot and must not affect the rights and freedoms set out in the joint declaration.”
Labour’s Shadow Asia Minister, Helen Goodman MP issued a strong challenge to the UK government:
“A serious discussion in this House on the situation in Hong Kong is overdue. China’s erosion of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Hong Kong Basic Law has been growing since the pro-democracy Umbrella protests in 2014. The last few years have seen an increasing crackdown on dissent and protest, with political parties banned, pro-democracy candidates blocked and journalists expelled. The conviction of nine leaders of the Hong Kong Umbrella movement yesterday—they could face seven years in prison for organising peaceful protests—is totally disproportionate and clearly politically motivated. The proposals to change Hong Kong’s extradition law means they could serve sentences thousands of miles away in mainland China.
The Sino-British joint declaration is a legally binding treaty registered with the United Nations, and the British Government are a joint guarantor, with China, of the rights of Hong Kong citizens. I have one simple question for the Minister: how will the Government fulfil their legal responsibilities to the citizens of Hong Kong?”
In response to this challenge, Mark Field MP highlighted the ongoing commitment of the UK to Hong Kong, as well as the belief that the ‘one-country, two-systems’ approach is in China’s interests:
“We take one country, two systems very seriously, and we will continue to do so… Our view is that the approach is very much in China’s interests, and China has implicitly recognised the importance of Hong Kong as a financial capital market and business centre. It is therefore equally important that we impress upon China that the uniqueness of Hong Kong will be properly maintained, with Hong Kong reaching its full potential, only if we ensure that “two systems,” as set out in the joint declaration, is every bit as important as “one country.””
Stephen Gethins, the international affairs spokesperson of the Scottish National Party argued that judicial independence was in the best interests of Hong Kong as a commercial hub and was therefore in China’s interest:
“Does the Minister agree that judicial independence is absolutely critical to commercial investment and certainty, and that it is in the interests of China as well? Secondly, what Hong Kong-related discussions have he and his colleagues had with regard to trade talks, and what reassurances have Ministers sought over China’s commitment to Hong Kong’s autonomy and the independence of the legal system?”
The Minister, Mark Field said:
“We have made it very clear that for Hong Kong to fulfil its potential—and, indeed, for China to do so in areas such as the belt and road initiative—the independence of, dare I say it, a common law system such as the British legal system is seen as more reliable for investors than perhaps the more doubtful, or at least less orthodox, systems in Shanghai and elsewhere. Although Pudong in Shanghai is a very important financial centre for China and does a lot of domestic work, Hong Kong still enjoys the confidence of many international capital markets.
On the specifics of free trade agreements in a post-Brexit world, clearly Hong Kong would be towards the top of the list, given the strength of our relationship. We have made it very clear to China that one of the reasons we want one country, two systems to be properly promoted is that it is very much in the interests of China’s plans for its own economic development in the years to come. I thank the hon. Gentleman for his focus on that particular issue, but we should not deny that human rights issues will remain extremely important as far as our own commitment to one country, two systems is concerned.”
Richard Graham MP, the Chair of the China All Party Parliamentary Group, raised the importance of Hong Kong’s rule of law. He said:
“The six-monthly Foreign Office report on Hong Kong, which is circulated by the all-party China group that I have the honour to chair, recognises the close bilateral Hong Kong-UK relations on culture and trade in many sectors, but the Minister is right to highlight the continuing pressures on Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy. Will he confirm that, in relation to the pro-democracy activists found guilty of public nuisance, the appeal process is still very much open and that the higher courts including, if needed, the Court of Final Appeal must take into consideration the freedoms of assembly and speech guaranteed under the joint declaration?”
Mark Field responded by saying:
“I am happy to confirm that. As I said, we have highlighted our hope that a range of recent court rulings do not discourage lawful protest in the future. I stress that Hong Kong citizens are guaranteed the rights to freedom of assembly and demonstration under the joint declaration and the Basic Law.”
For details of the remaining 13 speeches, please read Hansard here https://hansard.parliament.uk/…/HongKongPro-DemocracyActivi…
or watch the Hong Kong Free Press Video link below. Party members of the Conservative Party, Labour Party, Liberal Democrat Party, Scottish National Party, Democratic Unionist Party and Plaid Cymru were all represented in the debate.
April 10, 2019
Video link:
https://www.hongkongwatch.org/…/mps-raise-extradition-law-a…
democratic unionist party 在 觀念座標 Facebook 的最佳貼文
※ 2018.12.14 觀點—《華盛頓郵報》Adam Taylor ※
英國脫歐(Brexit)歹戲拖棚演不完
英國脫離歐盟的漫漫長路本週又出現一個轉折:日前,首相特瑞莎·梅以些微的票數贏得了她自己政黨所發動的不信任投票。
雖然特瑞莎·梅沒有下台,但英國脫歐(Brexit)所引發的政治混亂與不確定性,卻遠非結束。為了避免「無協定脫歐」(no-deal Brexit)的結果,元氣大傷的梅首相依然必須想辦法在明年三月之前,使她不受歡迎的脫歐辦法(即《退出歐盟草案》(Withdrawl Agreement))通過英國國會的表決。目前看起來,似乎是不可能的任務。
為什麼一個曾是世界最強的國家,今日會變成這樣?有些人主張英國脫歐(Brexit)的種子在 2008 年發芽:經濟崩潰以及後續的政府撙節措施所引發。其他人主張,英國人本能性地反對歐盟,是二次世界大戰的心理創傷所造成。疑歐派則認為,英國從 1975 年加入以來,一直不信任歐盟。
然而,英國目前政治的混亂局面,是六年前種下的因果:當時的首相大衛·卡梅隆答應要舉行「留/退」歐盟的公投。因為卡梅隆當時擔憂他政黨內部對於歐盟的分歧立場,會使他的位置不保,如同他前任的保守黨首相約翰·梅傑(John Major,譯註:希望英國留在歐盟)以及柴契爾夫人(譯註:希望英國脫離歐盟)一樣。卡梅隆希望政府讓人民公投決定此一問題,不但可使保守黨內部團結,也讓反對歐盟的英國獨立黨(UKIP)不能搶保守黨的票。
短期看來,卡梅隆的賭注似乎得到不錯的結果。保守黨輕鬆贏得 2015 年的選舉,主張脫歐的 UKIP 只獲得一席國會議員的位置。當時許多英人似乎不認為英國最迫切的問題是歐盟。然而這一切很快就發生改變。
卡梅隆認為,他可以輕易贏得公投,然而大批移民湧入歐洲、再加上歐洲多處發生恐怖攻擊,使他無法輕鬆說服民眾留在歐盟好處多多。他謙卑地跑到布魯塞爾請歐盟讓步(譯按:即「四大自由」的移民問題),然而歐盟堅持英國不能得了便宜還賣乖——即享受歐盟會員的好處,卻不願承擔責任。
卡梅隆只能利用「恐懼感攻勢」(Project Fear),警告民眾英國脫歐盟,經濟馬上會衰退,失業率馬上會升高,希望人民買帳。當時多項民調顯示,民意似乎傾向留在歐盟。然而 2016 年 6 月 23 日所舉行的正式公投,英國選民大舉出動,而希望脫離歐盟的票數以 52% 取勝。英鎊馬上下跌 8%(譯按:兩年後,英國政府當年的警告尚未應驗,英國經濟不降反升,失業率創新低。當年作出預言的財政部、央行,可信度因此大打折扣。)卡梅隆因此下台,導致保守黨必須啟動政黨領袖的選舉過程。
特瑞莎·梅一向認為英國最好留在歐盟,她之前反對退出,所以她怎麼能領導英國脫歐呢?然而,脫歐派在選舉之前陷入分裂,特瑞莎·梅因此取勝。
梅首相剛開始滿口承諾她會支持英國退出歐盟,她不斷重覆的口號是:英國脫歐就是英國脫歐(Brexit means Brexit)。之後不久,英國高等法院判決,在英國正式決定脫歐之前,政府必須諮詢國會的意見。國會因此要求,任何退出協議敲定之前,都必須在國會經過「有意義的投票」(a meaningful vote),批准之後才能生效。
梅首相企圖處理此一國會權限變大的問題,於是宣布在 2017 年 6 月提前普選,她原本希望增加保守黨的多數席次。但事與願違,她反而輸掉了保守黨的多數——迫使她必須與北愛爾蘭的民主統一黨(Democratic Unionist Party)結盟。這使得歐盟可以輕易利用北愛爾蘭的問題,對英國的脫歐談判製造難題。
梅首相第一次在 2018 年 7 月提出她的脫歐辦法,這造成第一批政府首長辭職抗議,認為她的辦法對歐盟讓步太多。同年 9 月,梅首相在薩爾茲堡高峰會上提出她的脫歐辦法,但被歐盟拒絕。
今年 11 月,梅首相終於與歐盟商談出一個草案。這個草案也取得她內閣的同意。(譯註:但也造成第二批政府首長辭職抗議。)對於脫歐派來說,她所商談出來的脫歐辦法,有太多令他們不舒服的讓步。長達 585 頁的《脫歐協定》,規定了一個過渡期,主要是讓英國留在歐盟的關稅同盟裡,一直到 2020 年,甚至可能更久。脫歐派認為,這是對脫歐理想的背叛;另一方面,留歐派則要求舉行第二次公投,以推翻之前英國脫離歐盟的公投結果,繼續留在歐盟。
本來英國國會要在本週二就梅首相的脫歐協定進行「有意義的投票」。然而梅首相在週一卻臨陣脫逃(譯按:她知道她會輸),決定取消投票,說要到歐洲各國遊說,希望取得進一步的「保證」。然而英歐談判過程之中最棘手的問題,例如北愛的邊界問題,不可能因為口頭保證就會讓北愛的國會議員心服口服。與此同時,梅首相在黨內的信用度愈來愈低,這使得她對外的協商力每下愈況。似乎,讓特瑞莎·梅還能繼續擔任英國首相的唯一理由,是沒有人想要做她的工作、承擔她的業務。
現在沒有人知道,怎麼樣的脫歐辦法可以取得絕大多數國會議員的支持,更不用說絕大多數英國民眾的支持了。第二次公投的機率似乎愈來愈大。而因為英國脫歐(Brexit)造成的政治紛擾,讓許多英國選民認為歐盟變成英國必須解決的最重大議題了。兩年前投票主張脫離的人,有些現在想要留在歐盟;但也有兩年前投票留歐的人,現在改變心意,希望脫離以結束此一政治亂象。
回顧英國為了脫離歐盟而走過的漫漫長路,唯一的結論只能是,這一齣拖棚的歹戲近期內沒有結束的可能性。
https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/britains-long-tortuous-pa…/
democratic unionist party 在 彭博商業周刊 / 中文版 Facebook 的最讚貼文
【觀點】英國脫歐已是陳詞濫調
2016年6月底,法拉奇(Nigel Farage)在布魯塞爾歐洲議會(European Parliament)上發表了個人職業生涯中極為重要的一次講話。五天前,英國公投決定脫離歐盟,成為歐盟近60年歷史上首個退出國家。對於這個讓人目瞪口呆、大失所望的投票結果,英國獨立黨(Independence Party)領袖法拉奇覺得自己的職業生涯終於得到了認可,他趁機向來自整個歐洲大陸的同事發出嚴正警告:「5月下旬我們迎來了一個了不起的結果。」他說:「稱得上重磅事件。不僅對英國政治影響深遠,對整個歐洲乃至全球的政治無疑也都是一場大地震。」
兩年後的今天,英國依然能感受到這場制度地震的影響。首先,英國政治格局發生了根本性變化:公投發起人、極力號召英國「留歐」的前保守黨首相卡梅倫(David Cameron)遭受恥辱性失敗,隨即引咎辭職。接替他的是文翠珊(Theresa May)。文翠珊在隨後新一輪大選中喪失議會多數優勢,被迫與民主統一黨(Democratic Unionist Party)建立政治夥伴關係。另外,英國經濟增長放緩,增速從七大工業國的榜首掉到榜尾附近。最令人擔憂的是,英國仍然拿不出一份現實像樣的計劃來擺正今後與歐盟的關係,哪怕這些關係對於確定英國未來幾十年的繁榮和地位至關重要。
而另一反面,在歐盟其他國家的眼裡,「英國脫歐」已經從殘酷事實變成了陳詞濫調。其他27個成員國正悄悄尋求在談判中維護自己的共同利益,然後繼續前進。事實上,歐盟已經面臨諸多挑戰:與美國的貿易對抗暴露了其全球影響力的缺乏;在意大利,聯盟黨(League)和五星運動(Five Star Movement)的民粹主義聯盟可能將該國引向脫歐之路;歐元區的經濟治理依然困難重重,最近的主權債務危機倘若重演,該地區經濟極易遭受衝擊。英國脫歐只是眾多憂心問題中的一個。
從理論上看,法拉奇所言甚是:英國脫歐可能給整個歐盟造成嚴重破壞。公投結束後的幾個月,分析師忙碌地檢視可能步英國後塵的國家。首先是法國:極右翼政黨民族陣線(National Front)領袖勒龐(Marine Le Pen)因承諾帶領法國脫歐,在民調中最得人心。荷蘭方面,自由黨(Party for Freedom,疑歐派政黨)領袖威爾德斯(Geert Wilders)在民調中遙遙領先,該國多少也面臨脫歐風險。
但就在人們預計英國脫歐可能迅速引發多米諾骨牌效應之際,去年年初開始的一系列選舉打破了這一預期。荷蘭建立了以首相呂特(Mark Rutte)為首的多元化聯盟,對疑歐勢力起到極大的遏制。在法國,馬克龍(Emmanuel Macron)借助公開的聯邦主義者平台在總統大選中完勝勒龐。意大利方面,雖然反建制黨派在前不久的大選上非常活躍,但最近聯盟黨和五星運動黨都排除了本國脫歐的可能。就目前來看,英國脫歐只是個例外,而非倒下的第一張骨牌。
事情之所以會有這種發展,其中一個原因可能是歐洲經濟對於公投的反應比預期要好得多。投票後短短幾個月,也就是2016年秋天,歐盟委員會(European Commission)預計歐元區2017年國民生產總值(GDP)將增長1.5%,2018年增1.7%。該委員會最新預測顯示,去年歐元區經濟增長2.4%,今年有望增長2.3%。
英國公投後的經濟表現也比預期強勁。但是和其他歐盟國家的加速增長不同,英國的增速是放緩的:2015年,英國國民收入增長2.3%,增幅高於歐元區的2.1%。去年,英國國民收入增速進一步放緩,降至1.8%,歐元區為2.4%,這一趨勢在今年似乎還將持續。投資者對這兩個經濟體的相對長期前景也十分篤定:2016年初,1英鎊能兌1.36歐元,而到了5月中旬,英鎊跌至1.14歐元。――Ferdinando Giugliano;譯 楊熙
(本文節選自《彭博商業周刊∕中文版》第147期,如欲查閱全文,歡迎訂閱)
#英國脫歐 #文翠珊 #法拉奇
★★★訂閱聯絡:bbwhk_cir@modernmedia.com.hk(香港)、(+886)02-23612151(台灣)訂閱即送全年iPad∕iPhone版App閱讀權限和一份精美禮品