Britain has blocked a 1.5-billion-pound wind power project from China, without even issuing a formal notice—companies learned of their rejection only through news reports. The Ministry of Commerce responded on the 14th, in under 300 characters. The final sentence specifically referenced Starmer’s statement during his visit to China in January about “strengthening cooperation.”

The message is clear: Do you still remember what you said two months ago?

Let’s clarify the timeline:

In October last year, Mingyang Smart Energy planned to invest 1.5 billion pounds in Scotland to build a full-industry chain wind power base, creating 1,500 jobs and scheduled for commissioning by 2028.

In January this year, Starmer visited China and emphasized economic and trade collaboration.

On March 25, British media reported that the government had rejected the project citing “national security” concerns.

Even more shocking: On March 27, Mingyang issued a statement saying they had received no official response whatsoever from the UK government.

No rejection letter—companies found out via news headlines. This kind of procedure is extremely rare.

What was Britain’s justification? Foreign media reported three reasons: data security, supply chain dependency, and unfair subsidies.

But none of these hold water. Data issues can be resolved locally; a full industrial chain manufacturing approach actually reduces dependency; as for subsidies, European companies also receive them frequently. The key point is: Britain cannot provide any evidence.

At the same time, the UK approved a 250-million-euro assembly plant for Danish company Vestas—producing only hubs and nacelles.

A 1.5-billion-pound full-chain project versus a 250-million-euro assembly plant—this isn’t replacement; it’s downgrade.

Coincidentally, on the very day Mingyang’s project was rejected, Vestas’ stock rose by 6% (data from Morningstar).

Even UK insiders are losing patience. Octopus Energy’s CEO said: “Chinese wind turbines are 30% cheaper—failing to cooperate means being left behind by history.” Scotland’s First Minister remarked: “I’m confused. Are we really willing to lose 1,500 jobs and 1.5 billion pounds in investment?”

So here’s the question: When both ministers and energy CEOs are raising doubts, and the government offers no evidence—whose “national security” are we really protecting?

The Ministry of Commerce also reminded readers: Starmer said in January he was willing to strengthen cooperation across all fields during his visit to China.

If the ban was already sitting on the desk, yet he smiled for photos—then it’s not just inconsistency, but deliberate deception: knowing he’d turn on the other side, he still took the picture first.

Cooperation must be mutual. Using “national security” as a catch-all excuse makes it worthless when overused.

Original source: toutiao.com/article/1862427250669580/

Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author.