From NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT
By Paul Homewood
This week, Ed Miliband had two clear opportunities to explain why he will not publish the UK’s energy cooperation agreement with China from March 2025. First, in the House of Commons, when challenged by the Shadow Energy Secretary, Claire Coutinho, he dismissed the concern as a “wacky conspiracy theory that she gets on the internet”. Then again before the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, where he was asked repeatedly why the agreement has not been disclosed and refused to answer the question seventeen times.
But this is not a conspiracy theory. Energy security is national security.
This is an agreement that concerns critical infrastructure. It has been signed with a state that NATO describes as a “systemic challenge”. Last year, China and Russia described their partnership as having “no limits”. As such, Parliament and the public are entitled to know what ministers are signing in the country’s name.
The debate so far has centred on human rights. It is suspected that publication could expose the companies embedded in Britain’s green supply chains, potentially triggering strategic litigation and even delaying key Net Zero targets. That would be politically awkward for a government that presents itself as legally scrupulous and morally exacting.
Yet the uncomfortable reality is that without Chinese manufacturing dominance in turbines, batteries and grid equipment, Clean Power 2030 becomes far harder to deliver. And as one of America’s Founding Fathers, Benjamin Franklin, once observed: “Necessity never made a good bargain.”
Human rights concerns are serious and legitimate. But when the subject is energy systems and supply chains, the central issue is strategic.
Anyone concerned with Britain’s hard power capabilities – and the independence of our democratic institutions – in the face of revisionist powers such as China and Russia should be concerned about an agreement that deepens structural dependence in sectors Beijing openly treats as instruments of strategic leverage and as foundations of its military-industrial strength.
This is not paranoia or alarmism. Let’s just take what China’s President Xi Jinping said in 2020.
Full story here.
Australia’s Blackout Bowen simply says his contracts are commercial-in-confidence – end of story.
You can bet they are agreed minimum ROI on and agreed estimated project cost. The income flows irrespective of the power generated.
Miliband has a God complex
The Phil Jones approach. Keep it secret – someone will find something wrong with it….
And very easily.
It is a massive global problem for the watermelons with all their loony wasted plant food-
https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f525.svg Fleet of HYDROGEN buses WITHDRAWN after MASSIVE fire https://s.w.org/images/core/emoji/17.0.2/svg/1f525.svg | MGUY Australia
The internet remembers so how to get control of the narrative again now the lefty media has been sprung?
It looks like a Dictatorship in the UK to me.
I don’t see any of the current leadership returning to reality.
It is shocking to watch these fools destroy the UK.
Well, they were given a majority, weren’t they? What did people think they would do with that power? At least in Canada The Carney (the grey man who is our PM and had been the head of the Bank of England) still has a minority, though he has enticed (bribed some say) 3 people to cross the floor.
Surely agreements between the UK government and foreign powers should be debated in parliament before coming into effect? Like joining or leaving the EU.
If that open discussion in parliament doesn’t happen- what makes the agreement legal?
We seem to have reached the point where “legal” is a matter of unimportant and flexible opinion. Cultural suicide, middle stage.
That’s what happens when you get a lawyer as a Prime Minister!
USA: “Under Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the power to negotiate treaties, which require a two-thirds vote of the Senate for approval. The Senate does not technically “ratify” treaties, but provides “advice and consent” through a resolution, after which the President formally ratifies.”
UK: “UK treaty ratification is governed by the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG), requiring the government to lay treaties before Parliament for 21 sitting days. While traditionally a Royal Prerogative power, the Commons can block ratification, though it cannot amend treaties. If the treaty changes domestic law, implementing legislation is required.”
I was going to say “only n the USA”, but it looks like parlamentary review is required just as you say.
Does nobody ever think “If i support this now, what happens when the other team is in charge?”
Seems the word treaty needs to enter into the conversation at some point.
“Miliband must publish his secret China energy deal” Apparently, “must” is subject to Miliband‘s interpretation. But you got our hope up for a split second.
According to the Telegraph he released the Memorandum of Understanding on Fri 27th, but I cannot find it.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/02/27/miliband-deal-opens-door-chinese-investment-uk-wind-farms/
It commits the UK to closer cooperation with China on offshore wind farms, electricity grids, battery storage, carbon capture and hydrogen, while leaving the door open to potential cooperation on other areas, including civil nuclear power.
In addition to research and policy exchanges, one section makes clear that both countries will “aim to facilitate opportunities for British and Chinese companies to collaborate to create mutual trade and investment opportunities”, including investments in manufacturing and services.
The man is nothing more than a useful idiot…
Idiot certainly. Useful not so much. Not to the UK anyway.
We in the west need to learn that the PRC cannot be trusted as a reliable ally. We have a similar problem in Canada, with The Carney (the grey man who is our current Liberal PM), appearing to cozy up with them.
It makes me wonder just whose pockets all these people are in.
Prior to WWII, Britain had Churchill to counter Chamberlain. From an outsider’s perspective, this time they have no one to counter Miliband. Winston kept them from having to speak German. This time, looks as if they’ll have to learn Chinese…
Net zero in China can also equate to net zero ethnic prisoners unalive in the western China gulag network. The EU approach to this is declare it bad but don’t start thinking about it until 2028. How many BBC reporters are on top of this secret issue?
Secret deal as in no talking about the green gulag in western China.
It is simple fire him, haven’t he done enough damage already?