Denying anti-China MP entry may be bad press but perfectly justified
British politicians like Wera Hobhouse make a living by kicking up a fuss. So when Hong Kong authorities denied her entry at the airport, naturally, it presented the perfect opportunity.
Advertisement
Now the Liberal Democrat member of parliament has made so much noise even the Foreign Secretary David Lammy is on the case, demanding an explanation. She said it was because China wanted to shut her up. What, by giving her a perfect excuse to broadcast her 'ordeal' for the UK media to lap it up?
Well, I have an explanation for Lammy and Hobhouse.
The Lib Dem is a key member of the Inter-Parliamentary Alliance on China (Ipac), a malignant propaganda outfit filled with European and US political hacks pretending to be activists. Usually, you have activists fighting politicians but these guys like to cosplay as they are heavily funded by the Taiwan Foundation for Democracy, essentially an outlet for the island's independence, and the National Endowment for Democracy, a US congressional-funded body pretending to be an independent NGO – according to a 2021 investigation by Junge Welt, a German left-wing publication.
The way Hobhouse told it, you would have thought Hong Kong immigration officials strip-searched and cattle-prodded her. Officials said she was questioned but refused to cooperate. She said she behaved like a perfect lady. In the event, her husband was allowed into the city but decided to join her on the flight back home. She said it was supposed to be a private visit to see their son and newborn grandchild.
Advertisement
I don't want to second-guess immigration officers, but I would have let her in after questioning. She would still have made a fuss just for being questioned but it would have perfectly exposed her hypocrisy and that of Ipac.
Apparently her son has decided to work and raise a family in Hong Kong since 2019. But isn't Hong Kong supposed to be like George Orwell's 1984 now?
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTHK
a day ago
- RTHK
Trump 'very disappointed' by Musk's bill criticism
Trump 'very disappointed' by Musk's bill criticism On Tuesday Elon Musk called Donald Trump's proposed tax bill a "disgusting abomination." Phjoto: AFP US President Donald Trump said on Thursday he was "very disappointed" by Elon Musk's criticism of his policy mega-bill, adding he didn't know if his friendship with his billionaire former adviser would survive. In an extraordinary rant in the Oval Office as visiting German Chancellor Friedrich Merz sat mutely beside him, Trump unloaded on SpaceX and Tesla boss Musk in his first comments on the issue. "Look, Elon and I had a great relationship. I don't know if we will anymore. I was surprised," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office after Musk slammed the bill as an "abomination". "I'm very disappointed, because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than almost anybody sitting here... All of a sudden, he had a problem," Trump added. Musk hit back minutes later on his X social network, saying the 78-year-old president's claims he had advance sight of the bill were "false". "Whatever," he added above a video of Trump saying Musk was upset about the loss of subsidies for electric vehicles. The latest clash comes less than a week since Trump held a grand Oval Office farewell for Musk as he wrapped up his time leading the cost-cutting Department of Government Efficiency (Doge). Musk stunned reporters at the time by turning up with a black eye that he said was caused by his son. "You saw a man who was very happy when he stood behind the Oval desk, and even with the black eye. I said, you want a little makeup? We'll get you a little makeup," Trump said. "But he said, 'No, I don't think so,' which is interesting and very nice. He wants to be who he is." Trump said he could understand why Musk was upset with some steps he had taken, including withdrawing a nominee to lead the Nasa space agency whom the tech tycoon had backed. The US president's "big, beautiful bill" on tax and spending – the centrepiece of his domestic agenda – could define his second term and make or break Republican prospects in the 2026 midterm elections. Musk however called it a "disgusting abomination" on Tuesday. A day later, the magnate called for Republicans to "kill the bill," and for an alternative plan that "doesn't massively grow the deficit." (AFP)
HKFP
2 days ago
- HKFP
Hong Kong lawmakers endorse New Zealand judge for top court
A New Zealand judge has been appointed as a justice of Hong Kong's top court, after a years-long exodus of overseas jurists following Beijing's imposition of a sweeping security law on the finance hub. Hong Kong's lawmakers on Wednesday approved the appointment of William Young, 73, to join five other overseas non-permanent justices from the UK and Australia. Hong Kong is a common law jurisdiction separate from mainland China and invites overseas judges to hear cases at its Court of Final Appeal. Their presence has been seen as a bellwether for the rule of law since the former British colony was handed back to China in 1997. Beijing passed a national security law on Hong Kong in 2020, following huge and often violent pro-democracy protests in the Chinese city the year before. Since then, several overseas judges have quit the Court of Final Appeal without finishing their terms, while others have not renewed their appointments. The lineup of overseas judges has gone from 15 at its peak down to five, not including Young. The newly appointed justice, who retired from his role as a New Zealand Supreme Court judge in April 2022, is expected to start in Hong Kong this month. Hong Kong leader John Lee accepted a recommendation to appoint Young in May and praised him as 'a judge of eminent standing and reputation'. Cases at the top court in Hong Kong are typically heard by a panel of four local judges and a fifth ad hoc member, who may be a foreign judge. In January, Hong Kong's chief justice said recruiting suitable overseas judges 'may be less straightforward than it once was', given geopolitical headwinds. The government has defended the security law as necessary to restore order after the 2019 protests and said the city remains a well-respected legal hub.
Asia Times
2 days ago
- Asia Times
The rise of 'antidiplomacy' in a powerless Europe
Europe today practices a diplomacy that delivers no outcomes. Policies are not designed to protect interests, but rather scripted to signal virtue or hopeless transatlantic loyalty. What emerges is not influence but illusion—driven by theatrical posturing, improvised authority and leaders performing roles the Treaties never defined. This apparatus speaks for a Union it cannot command, confronts adversaries it cannot deter and preaches values it fails to apply—notably at home. The result is a simulation of geopolitics without the means to shape it. Nowhere is this more evident than in Kaja Kallas. As EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs, she has, within months, inverted the role she was appointed to uphold—projecting the bloc onto the global stage with confrontational positions that undermine the very interests she is meant to defend. While the US slaps punitive tariffs on Europe, openly mocks EU leaders at every opportunity or restricts visas for officials accused of censoring speech, Europe defers to Washington's harassment while simultaneously picking fights with China's cooperation overtures. This diplomatic inversion is so surreal it reads like satire—except it's shaping European foreign policy in real-time. This isn't the misstep of an individual gone off script. It reflects the system that empowered her. Kallas is the crystalline expression of Europe's institutional breakdown—both architect and product of a structure where someone can improvise foreign policy from a legal vacuum, issuing declarations that member states neither endorse nor recognize. In any functioning order, this would resemble performance art. In today's Europe, it passes for statecraft. The decay predates her appointment. Since 2019, the European Commission has stumbled through geopolitics without strategy or constitutional authority, constrained by presidential-regime management, incoherent China positions and pathological American dependence. What emerges is not mere incompetence but institutional abdication. What follows is diplomacy reimagined as avant-garde theater: loud, self-referential and detached from leverage. Five recent episodes chart Europe's descent from foreign policy to geopolitical burlesque. Act I. The 'China Doctrine of Confusion' was inaugurated with Kallas's October 2024 confirmation hearing, branding China as 'partly malign'—plagiarizing Washington's talking points without evidence or nuance. She marooned Beijing in a gray zone between rivalry and threat, manageable only through Atlantic alignment. When Trump returned and that alignment vanished overnight, Brussels found itself speaking a political dialect nobody else understood. Act II. The 'Munich Humiliation' followed predictably. At the February 2025 Munich Security Conference, US Vice President JD Vance ridiculed Europe's irrelevance before its own leaders. The response? Crickets. Kallas later surfaced with desperate bravado: 'It seems the US is trying to pick a fight with Europe,' followed by, 'the free world needs a new leader. It's up to us, Europeans, to take this challenge'—a suggestion that collapses under the weight of its own absurdity. The remark blended wishful thinking, cowardice and diplomatic malpractice. Munich revealed Europe as the guest who doesn't realize the party ended hours ago. Act III. The 'Washington Snub' came next. Kallas's late February 2025 trip to Washington was supposed to reaffirm the transatlantic partnership. Instead, Secretary of State Marco Rubio refused to meet her after she had already arrived—rather unprecedented. What Brussels still imagined as coordination now looked like supplication. The slight wasn't personal—it was re-educational; the US had moved from ignoring Europe to actively tutoring it in irrelevance. Act IV. At Singapore's Shangri-La Dialogue, Kallas declared that, 'If you are worried about China, you should be worried about Russia,' painting their partnership as the unified threat of our time. She accused Beijing of enabling Moscow's war machine with righteous indignation—while carefully omitting Europe's own complicity. Indeed, as Energy Commissioner Dan Jorgensen recently admitted, EU member states had spent the equivalent of 2,400 F-35 fighter jets on Russian fossil fuels since Ukraine's invasion began. If any party funded Putin's war chest, it seems it was Europe itself. Yet instead of confronting this inconvenient arithmetic, the blame is projected outward with the confidence of someone who's never audited their own receipts. Furthermore, the China-Russia relationship described as monolithic is shot through with friction. Moscow bristles at Beijing's reluctance to buy non-energy exports and fears Chinese products flooding markets abandoned by Western brands. China, meanwhile, has consistently opposed Russia's nuclear threats. But such complexity disrupts the performance. To maintain the narrative, Kallas must ignore partner contradictions and allied failures alike: don't let truth spoil a good headline. India-Russia worries less. While Brussels fixates on China's enabling of Moscow, it ignores the significant arms and trade flows between Russia and India. According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), India was the largest recipient of Russian major arms exports between 2020 and 2024, accounting for 38% of Moscow's total arms transfers. These include systems that would be considered destabilizing if sold elsewhere, alongside exports that help soften the impact of Russia's attempted economic isolation. Meanwhile, last February, the Commission staged its largest-ever diplomatic mission in Delhi, dispatching 21 commissioners while pointedly avoiding any mention of India's deepening ties with Moscow or the penurious condition of local human rights. None of this fits Brussels's narrative, so it is simply ignored. To question India would complicate the EU's Indo-Pacific fantasies; to confront it would expose the incoherence of a strategy that treats China as a menace and India as a partner, even when their behavior toward Russia overlaps. The issue is, therefore, not the scale of coercion—it's the selectivity of attention. Act V. The' Tyrolean Theater' marks the logical endpoint, a final act approaching with operatic absurdity. The EU is staging a spectacle in the Tyrol, showcasing 'multilingual education' alongside Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi. As Finbarr Bermingham of the SCMP reports, the aim is to contrast Europe's supposed linguistic tolerance with China's 'coercive' policies in Tibet and Xinjiang. Kallas will star in this surreal production while Spanish Prime Minister Sanchez pushes to make Catalan, Basque and Galician official EU languages—despite all speakers being fluent in Spanish. The move isn't about linguistic rights; it's about securing Sanchez's grip on power through a pact with a fugitive from justice, even though Spain's own Constitution doesn't recognize these languages as official. The parallel is unmistakable: what Sanchez does inside the EU, Kallas does outside—politicizing institutions not to serve European interests but to consolidate personal leverage. Same logic, different scales. The Russo-Ukrainian war has exposed this parallel, revealing the theatrical void at the heart of European diplomacy. Kallas had a chance to become a serious voice by supporting a credible peace process. Instead, even Trump moved first. Her confrontational stance—driven more by Estonia's historical trauma than by her current responsibilities—only highlighted her inability to represent Europe as a whole. Sanchez is no different. Since the war began, Spain has spent 6.9 billion euros on Russian energy, nearly seven times what it has pledged in military aid to Ukraine (1 billion euros). That hasn't stopped the Spanish prime minister from posing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at every photo-op. By Brussels' own logic, for every euro sent to help Kyiv resist invasion, seven go to 'enabling' the invader. And yet, from this circus of contradictions, Brussels now prepares to lecture Beijing on language rights. While English is official in Hong Kong and Portuguese in Macau, the EU—lacking a unified language policy and operating beyond any Treaty mandate for foreign affairs—positions itself as arbiter of linguistic freedom. It does so while unable to define its own foreign policy, lacking the expertise, coherence and unity it claims to embody, and all while courting the trade of those it publicly scolds. All in all, since the Treaties never equipped the EU with functional foreign policy machinery, Kallas has reimagined her role as a late-stage European Parliament resolution: maximally loud, thoroughly self-congratulatory and utterly inconsequential. All this choreography builds toward the July EU–China summit in Beijing. To ensure its failure, Kallas is deploying every tool at her disposal—inflammatory statements, staged moralism and the inspired Tyrolean gambit: sabotage repackaged as statesmanship, a masterclass in how to alienate partners while accomplishing nothing. In pushing this agenda, Brussels has confused activity with authority, noise with leverage and moral posturing with purpose. Foreign policy is now produced like conceptual art: provocative in form, hollow in function and legible only to fellow insiders. The Kallas doctrine—if it deserves the term—is not a strategy but a method: generate friction, claim virtue and ignore the fallout. And yet she is not alone in this European opera buffa. The system allows it. The Union's institutional design enables gestures without mandates and declarations without coordination. What passes for diplomacy is, in truth, a vacuum being filled—because no one else in the EU system knows what to say or wants the responsibility of saying it. The rise of 'antidiplomacy' is not about Europe failing to act; it is about acting when no one asked, on behalf of no one, with tools no one agreed to use. Brussels acts abroad not because it is empowered to but because the machinery keeps moving even when its purpose is unclear. Unless someone pulls the brake structurally, the Beijing summit won't just fail. It will confirm what many partners already suspect: that Europe can no longer tell the difference between having a position and staging one. Sebastian Contin Trillo-Figueroa is a Hong Kong-based geopolitics strategist with a focus on Europe-Asia relations.
