D**o
发帖数: 2653 | 1 【 以下文字转载自 HongKong 讨论区 】
发信人: Davo (Dove), 信区: HongKong
标 题: 李，陈被英方打脸
发信站: BBS 未名空间站 (Mon Jul 21 06:03:13 2014, 美东)
星岛环球网消息：“祸港四人帮”中的陈方安生及李柱铭日前在英国议会外交事务委员
会的公听会上大出洋相，多名英国国会议员连番质疑两人抹黑中央及“一国两制”白皮
书的“作供”，更揶揄他们的所谓“控诉”纯属“猜测”。其间，陈方安生“教训”英
方未有在“香港半年报告”中批评白皮书，英国议员则以苏格兰在英国议会授权下才能
拥有自己的议会为例的高度自治由中央授权，而法官爱国是必然的要求，并引用英国皇
家国际事务研究所（Chatham House）的报告，反驳陈李的一派胡言。
香港《文汇报》报道，陈方安生及李柱铭上周启程赴英，试图拉拢英方就香港的政
改问题向中央施压，此前，被誉为英国政坛御用智库的Chatham House发表评论报告，
表明白皮书并无显示中央政府对港政策有变，更没有“僭越”基本法所订明的权力。不
过，一心赴英“告洋状”的陈李，似乎对这份反映了英方主流意见的权威报告懵然不知
，当国会议员在外交事务委员会公听会上引述报告质疑二人的供词时，陈李这两位反对
派老手都大感错愕，窘态尽现。
在不足50分钟的公听会上，11个委员会成员中仅得6人出席，其间陈李二人就“一
国两制”白皮书、2017年普选及港人言论新闻自由等问题上作出“控诉”，声言白皮书
“冲击香港高度自治”，港人害怕被收回“一国两制”，还公然乞求英方介入，“希望
英国发声维护香港的核心价值”云。但委员未被陈李的“陈情”打动，英国议会外交事
务委员会主席质疑陈方安生所指“中央控制提名委员会”之说，“这是北京已经做的，
还是即将做的？”陈方安生在追问下，只能直认纯粹是她“恐怕”中央已经做了。
李柱铭接力抹黑中央：“如果中央不改变政策，为什么要公布白皮书，并翻译成7
种语言。”他又举例称， 白皮书将法官说成“治港者”就是“证据”，“这令香港很
多律师游行抗议白皮书。治港者是管治香港的人，法官绝对不是治港者，法官毋须爱国
爱港。”
陈李被质疑不想忠於国家
英国议员则反驳指，白皮书并没有说法官是治港者，白皮书亦非法律文件，不会影
响基本法的条文，而效忠国家亦不会影响法官的判决。该议员进一步引用Chatham
House的报告指，基本法是全国性的中国法律，而中国其他地方并非采用香港普通法，
北京的确拥有最终解释权。
他续说，香港的法官只能在北京设定的两制下运作，中国要求法官爱国，无可厚非
，“为何别国都要求政客、律师、管治者要爱国，但在香港你们却不想忠于国家，非要
忠于制度？”
英国议员认为，白皮书只是重申中央政府对“一国两制”的一贯政策，讥讽二人所
说是“猜测”，“有没有任何政策显示北京收紧政策？或者改变根本国策？我只看到你
们的诠释，希望你们详细解释实质的改变？”
李柱铭未能佐证，只诡辩称“从未听过有中国官员公开保证，中央政府和特区政府
明确地不会改变管治方针。”
英国议员其后进一步以苏格兰在英国议会授权下拥有自己的议会为例，说明香港的
普通法是源自基本法，而基本法是因为中国宪法而存在，又强调香港并非独立国家，而
是在中国宪法下实行“两制”，这些政策根本没有改变。
“威胁言论自由”论无根据
在白皮书问题上，陈李“求援”不成，而在抹黑港人言论及新闻自由受损方面同样
连番被挑战。二人试图搬出有节目主持被解雇等例子，声称港人自由已被削弱，但当国
会议员追问市民在接收电台、电视台节目和上网是否被限制时，李柱铭也只能直认“没
有”。
市民嘲陈李争取“一面屁”
陈方安生及李柱铭明日结束一星期访英行程抵港，并举行记者会。香港各界人士批
评，陈李在政改关键时刻访英，是试图引外力干预中国内政，二人在公听会上的表现更
加是自取其辱。有市民在讨论区上载陈李在公听会上“面懵懵”的片段，并留言指“有
片有真相，英议员狠掴陈李，大快人心”。网友“超级妙趣游星”嘲讽二人此行成功争
取到“一面屁”，“xx007xx”亦批评，两人“吓足港人十几年，傻子才相信他们”。
“幪面超人”就奉劝陈李：“真是为香港好，就应该实干实事，搞好香港，不是整天到
外面唱衰自己的地方。” |
n*****8
发帖数: 19630 | |
l*****o
发帖数: 9235 | |
D**o
发帖数: 2653 | 4 大家猜猜weewow会说啥
【在 n*****8 的大作中提到】
: 做奴才都这么不容易。
: :)
|
u*****n
发帖数: 3277 | 5 关键字："环球网消息"
【在 D**o 的大作中提到】
: 大家猜猜weewow会说啥
|
l**s
发帖数: 9490 | 6 大概会说，港独要靠自己，不能依赖洋人
【在 D**o 的大作中提到】
: 大家猜猜weewow会说啥
|
p********1
发帖数: 2785 | 7 星岛环球网，是星岛新闻集团有限公司旗下的直属分支机构，是以新闻为特色、以全球
华人为服务对象的大型综合性新闻资讯门户网站。
【在 u*****n 的大作中提到】
: 关键字："环球网消息"
|
p********o
发帖数: 8012 | |
D**o
发帖数: 2653 | 9 英文版
A new White Paper published by Beijing has provoked strong reactions in Hong
Kong for its perceived shift on the policy of the Special Administrative
Region's autonomy. But it is primarily politics, not the text of the paper
itself, driving the reaction.
Hundreds of lawyers and representatives from the legal sector dress in black
and take part in a silent march from the High Court to the Court of Final
Appeal on 27 June 2014 in Hong Kong. Photo by Lam Yik Fei/Getty Images.
Hundreds of lawyers and representatives from the legal sector dress in black
and take part in a silent march from the High Court to the Court of Final
Appeal on 27 June 2014 in Hong Kong. Photo by Lam Yik Fei/Getty Images.
In early June, the information office of the Chinese central government
published a White Paper on ‘One Country Two Systems’. This is the
settlement put in place after Hong Kong was handed over by the United
Kingdom to become a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic
of China in 1997, part of China while retaining its separate system.
In the context of high octane local politics and a fierce debate on
constitutional development, local reaction to the White Paper has been
dominated by concern that it signaled a shift to a more assertive approach
to Hong Kong from the central government, and by specific references in the
White Paper to Hong Kong’s judiciary.
The White Paper begins relatively benignly by stating that ‘One Country Two
Systems’ is China’s ‘basic state policy’ towards Hong Kong. It then
outlines the history and development of this policy, including the roles of
the central authorities and the areas in which Hong Kong enjoys a high
degree of autonomy, and ‘efforts made by the central government to ensure
the prosperity and development’ of Hong Kong.
The controversies have arisen over parts of the final section of the paper,
on ‘fully and accurately understanding and implementing [One Country Two
Systems]’.
First, statements that, ‘as a unitary state, China’s central government
has comprehensive jurisdiction [over Hong Kong]’ and that Hong Kong’s ‘
high degree of autonomy… is not an inherent power, but one that comes
solely from the authorization by the central leadership’ have been read by
some as marking a change from commitments made in the 1984 Sino-British
Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, the Chinese law which is in effect Hong
Kong’s constitution.
These statements immediately follow a reiteration of a phrase from the Joint
Declaration, namely that Hong Kong ‘will be [is] directly under the
authority of the central people’s government’. And as ‘authorization’ is
the term used in the Basic Law, most critics have focused on the argument
that ‘comprehensive jurisdiction’ adds a new and worrying element.
In context, the obvious reading of this phrase is as an explanation of the
nature of a unitary state. The phrase also appears in section II of the
paper (translated in the English version as ‘overall jurisdiction’), where
it is explained as referring to the ‘powers directly exercised by the
central government, and the powers delegated to [Hong Kong] to enable it to
exercise a high degree of autonomy…’ This is nothing here to support the
reading that ‘comprehensive jurisdiction’ goes beyond understandings set
out in the Joint Declaration and Basic Law.
A second set of concerns, around the legal and judicial implications of the
paper, have been set out by the Hong Kong Bar Association.
They begin by discussing the White Paper statement that the ‘power of
interpretation and amendment of the Basic Law [is] vested in the National
People’s Congress and its Standing Committee’. This is the standard
constitutional position and the Bar Association does not take issue with it,
but highlights the point – also included in the White Paper – that Hong
Kong’s courts can interpret Basic Law provisions ‘within the limits of [
Hong Kong’s] autonomy’.
Related to this, the Bar Association challenges a statement in the White
Paper about ‘correctly understanding… the Basic Law’ by pointing out that
in common law jurisdictions there is no definitive ‘correct’ meaning of
legislation. This is fair as far as the Basic Law is to be interpreted by
local courts within the limits of Hong Kong’s autonomy. But it misses the
point that the Basic Law is a national Chinese law (the rest of China does
not follow common law) and as such its interpretation is ultimately
something for Beijing, not the Hong Kong courts.
In between these two concerns, the Bar Association picks up on language
which lists the judiciary along with the government and legislature in a
section on patriotic requirements for ‘Hong Kong people running Hong Kong’
. The Bar Association says that ‘Judges and judicial officers… are not to
be regarded as part of ‘Hong Kong’s administrators’ or part of the
governance team upon whom a political requirement is imposed’, but without
directly criticizing the White Paper. Others, however, have picked up on
this to argue that the White Paper suggests that the central government sees
judges as being part of Hong Kong’s administration, and that this
undermines judicial independence.
However, the White Paper does not describe judges as administrators.
Although the English translation says judges ‘administrate’ [sic], the
Chinese word thus translated is the same as in ‘Hong Kong people running
Hong Kong’. The text is therefore including judges among those that ‘run
Hong Kong’, hardly controversial. At the very least, in its original
language the White Paper does not describe judges as administrators.
These conclusions are consistent with an interpretation of the central
government’s intention in publishing the White Paper being to be restate
long-standing official policy on ‘One Country Two Systems’, and not to
redefine Beijing’s policy towards Hong Kong.
Nonetheless, the political reality remains that people in Hong Kong have not
interpreted it this way, and the White Paper has been seized upon by those
who wish to push the centre to go beyond Basic Law provisions on the road to
universal suffrage. The political situation is complex, but it is politics
and not the text of the White Paper which is behind the last month’s rise
in political temperature in Hong Kong.
【在 u*****n 的大作中提到】
: 关键字："环球网消息"
|
n*****8
发帖数: 19630 | 10 老将不是被打脸就是自恨。
:)
【在 l*****o 的大作中提到】
: 老将的写照
|
|
|
D**o
发帖数: 2653 | 11 本版挺港灿泛民的几个ID跑哪里去了
【在 n*****8 的大作中提到】
: 老将不是被打脸就是自恨。
: :)
|
xt
发帖数: 17532 | 12 这个我支持，是拿起枪来反抗暴政的时候啦，香港人民上啊。
【在 l**s 的大作中提到】
: 大概会说，港独要靠自己，不能依赖洋人
|
d****0
发帖数: 502 | |
n********d
发帖数: 7676 | |
xt
发帖数: 17532 | 15 你认为英国会为了几个港灿牺牲自己国家的利益？
【在 n********d 的大作中提到】
: 奇怪，小将们真相信英国有这么多正义的议员吗？
|
n********d
发帖数: 7676 | 16 啥是英国的国家利益？
【在 xt 的大作中提到】
: 你认为英国会为了几个港灿牺牲自己国家的利益？
|
C****a
发帖数: 6593 | 17 世界各地的老将都是一个德行
【在 D**o 的大作中提到】
: 本版挺港灿泛民的几个ID跑哪里去了
|
d****z
发帖数: 9503 | 18 钱
【在 n********d 的大作中提到】
: 啥是英国的国家利益？
|
n********d
发帖数: 7676 | 19 原来如此。
【在 d****z 的大作中提到】
: 钱
|
s*****V
发帖数: 21731 | 20 关键是洋大人自己都要给TG陪笑脸了，再去参和这事不是找打脸么？所以先打打老将的
脸，学乖点，不要让洋大人难做 |
|
|
c****h
发帖数: 4968 | 21 这两个人是当年港英留在香港搞事的，现在搞不成就来见主子了。可见这些年那些民主
派表上打着“普选、民主”的幌子，实际上是在为洋大人办事，目的就是搅乱香港社会
。可惜他们错估了形势，没想到短短10几年中、西政经此消彼长。洋大人是任何时候都
是为了自身的利益。就算是打自己的狗给别人看也愿意。何况这两个又不是白人，洋大
人最不在乎的就是汉奸。 |
c****h
发帖数: 4968 | |
n********d
发帖数: 7676 | 23 洋大人陪笑脸说您能把钻油平台撤了嘛，我共就给了洋大人个面子。呵呵。希望你能一
直这么乐观。
【在 s*****V 的大作中提到】
: 关键是洋大人自己都要给TG陪笑脸了，再去参和这事不是找打脸么？所以先打打老将的
: 脸，学乖点，不要让洋大人难做
|
w****w
发帖数: 14828 | 24 現在這種土共宣傳網站真不少，環中網，星島環球網，觀察者，。。。不要太多
不多講，直接copy幾句這個網站自己寫的東西,“高舉xxx火炬” 好有中宣部feel，LOL
星島環球網 www.stnn.cc
友情链接
香港文汇报 未名空间 赶集网 天涯聚焦 广东侨网 凯迪网络 今日广东·南方报业海外
频道 中军网 香港成报网 新浪厦门 中奢网 亚太日报
http://www.stnn.cc/Copyright/singtaonet_about.html
关于我们
“。。。 这样的理想和理念，是我们前行的动力，也是我们高举的火炬。强大的资源
优势和我们的精干团队是实现这一理想的有力保障。”
【在 p********1 的大作中提到】
: 星岛环球网，是星岛新闻集团有限公司旗下的直属分支机构，是以新闻为特色、以全球
: 华人为服务对象的大型综合性新闻资讯门户网站。
|
g***e
发帖数: 4074 | 25 星岛环球网上确实是有这篇文章，不过是“转载”香港《文汇报》。原发的报刊不奇怪
，文汇报嘛。星岛转载也不奇怪，看看近十来年星岛集团的历程就知道了。完全不跟政
府合作的报刊很难存活的，大陆不例外，香港不例外，美国也不例外。
附：
http://news.stnn.cc/hongkong/2014/0719/117075.shtml
LOL
【在 w****w 的大作中提到】
: 現在這種土共宣傳網站真不少，環中網，星島環球網，觀察者，。。。不要太多
: 不多講，直接copy幾句這個網站自己寫的東西,“高舉xxx火炬” 好有中宣部feel，LOL
: 星島環球網 www.stnn.cc
: 友情链接
: 香港文汇报 未名空间 赶集网 天涯聚焦 广东侨网 凯迪网络 今日广东·南方报业海外
: 频道 中军网 香港成报网 新浪厦门 中奢网 亚太日报
: http://www.stnn.cc/Copyright/singtaonet_about.html
: 关于我们
: “。。。 这样的理想和理念，是我们前行的动力，也是我们高举的火炬。强大的资源
: 优势和我们的精干团队是实现这一理想的有力保障。”
|
d****0
发帖数: 502 | 26 老婊子又赢了。。。
【在 c****h 的大作中提到】
: 老婊子回来说的是另一个版本：
: “陳方安生指英國不排除動員國際跟進聯合聲明 ”
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJiheZUYCE4
|
d****0
发帖数: 502 | 27 老婊子又赢了。。。
【在 c****h 的大作中提到】
: 老婊子回来说的是另一个版本：
: “陳方安生指英國不排除動員國際跟進聯合聲明 ”
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJiheZUYCE4
|
d****0
发帖数: 502 | 28 老婊子又赢了。。。
【在 c****h 的大作中提到】
: 老婊子回来说的是另一个版本：
: “陳方安生指英國不排除動員國際跟進聯合聲明 ”
: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJiheZUYCE4
|
D**o
发帖数: 2653 | 29 英文版本拜托你也看看。
http://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/15140
White Paper Does Not Mark Major Shift on Hong Kong
Dr Tim Summers
Senior Consulting Fellow, Asia Programme (based in Hong Kong) - See more at:
http://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/15140#sthash.9YNKrwcR.dpuf
A new White Paper published by Beijing has provoked strong reactions in Hong
Kong for its perceived shift on the policy of the Special Administrative
Region's autonomy. But it is primarily politics, not the text of the paper
itself, driving the reaction.
Hundreds of lawyers and representatives from the legal sector dress in black
and take part in a silent march from the High Court to the Court of Final
Appeal on 27 June 2014 in Hong Kong. Photo by Lam Yik Fei/Getty Images.
Hundreds of lawyers and representatives from the legal sector dress in black
and take part in a silent march from the High Court to the Court of Final
Appeal on 27 June 2014 in Hong Kong. Photo by Lam Yik Fei/Getty Images.
In early June, the information office of the Chinese central government
published a White Paper on ‘One Country Two Systems’. This is the
settlement put in place after Hong Kong was handed over by the United
Kingdom to become a Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic
of China in 1997, part of China while retaining its separate system.
In the context of high octane local politics and a fierce debate on
constitutional development, local reaction to the White Paper has been
dominated by concern that it signaled a shift to a more assertive approach
to Hong Kong from the central government, and by specific references in the
White Paper to Hong Kong’s judiciary.
The White Paper begins relatively benignly by stating that ‘One Country Two
Systems’ is China’s ‘basic state policy’ towards Hong Kong. It then
outlines the history and development of this policy, including the roles of
the central authorities and the areas in which Hong Kong enjoys a high
degree of autonomy, and ‘efforts made by the central government to ensure
the prosperity and development’ of Hong Kong.
The controversies have arisen over parts of the final section of the paper,
on ‘fully and accurately understanding and implementing [One Country Two
Systems]’.
First, statements that, ‘as a unitary state, China’s central government
has comprehensive jurisdiction [over Hong Kong]’ and that Hong Kong’s ‘
high degree of autonomy… is not an inherent power, but one that comes
solely from the authorization by the central leadership’ have been read by
some as marking a change from commitments made in the 1984 Sino-British
Joint Declaration and the Basic Law, the Chinese law which is in effect Hong
Kong’s constitution.
These statements immediately follow a reiteration of a phrase from the Joint
Declaration, namely that Hong Kong ‘will be [is] directly under the
authority of the central people’s government’. And as ‘authorization’ is
the term used in the Basic Law, most critics have focused on the argument
that ‘comprehensive jurisdiction’ adds a new and worrying element.
In context, the obvious reading of this phrase is as an explanation of the
nature of a unitary state. The phrase also appears in section II of the
paper (translated in the English version as ‘overall jurisdiction’), where
it is explained as referring to the ‘powers directly exercised by the
central government, and the powers delegated to [Hong Kong] to enable it to
exercise a high degree of autonomy…’ This is nothing here to support the
reading that ‘comprehensive jurisdiction’ goes beyond understandings set
out in the Joint Declaration and Basic Law.
A second set of concerns, around the legal and judicial implications of the
paper, have been set out by the Hong Kong Bar Association.
They begin by discussing the White Paper statement that the ‘power of
interpretation and amendment of the Basic Law [is] vested in the National
People’s Congress and its Standing Committee’. This is the standard
constitutional position and the Bar Association does not take issue with it,
but highlights the point – also included in the White Paper – that Hong
Kong’s courts can interpret Basic Law provisions ‘within the limits of [
Hong Kong’s] autonomy’.
Related to this, the Bar Association challenges a statement in the White
Paper about ‘correctly understanding… the Basic Law’ by pointing out that
in common law jurisdictions there is no definitive ‘correct’ meaning of
legislation. This is fair as far as the Basic Law is to be interpreted by
local courts within the limits of Hong Kong’s autonomy. But it misses the
point that the Basic Law is a national Chinese law (the rest of China does
not follow common law) and as such its interpretation is ultimately
something for Beijing, not the Hong Kong courts.
In between these two concerns, the Bar Association picks up on language
which lists the judiciary along with the government and legislature in a
section on patriotic requirements for ‘Hong Kong people running Hong Kong’
. The Bar Association says that ‘Judges and judicial officers… are not to
be regarded as part of ‘Hong Kong’s administrators’ or part of the
governance team upon whom a political requirement is imposed’, but without
directly criticizing the White Paper. Others, however, have picked up on
this to argue that the White Paper suggests that the central government sees
judges as being part of Hong Kong’s administration, and that this
undermines judicial independence.
However, the White Paper does not describe judges as administrators.
Although the English translation says judges ‘administrate’ [sic], the
Chinese word thus translated is the same as in ‘Hong Kong people running
Hong Kong’. The text is therefore including judges among those that ‘run
Hong Kong’, hardly controversial. At the very least, in its original
language the White Paper does not describe judges as administrators.
These conclusions are consistent with an interpretation of the central
government’s intention in publishing the White Paper being to be restate
long-standing official policy on ‘One Country Two Systems’, and not to
redefine Beijing’s policy towards Hong Kong.
Nonetheless, the political reality remains that people in Hong Kong have not
interpreted it this way, and the White Paper has been seized upon by those
who wish to push the centre to go beyond Basic Law provisions on the road to
universal suffrage. The political situation is complex, but it is politics
and not the text of the White Paper which is behind the last month’s rise
in political temperature in Hong Kong.
To comment on this article, please contact Chatham House Feedback
- See more at: http://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/15140#sthash.eSiCkg9K.
dpuf
LOL
【在 w****w 的大作中提到】
: 現在這種土共宣傳網站真不少，環中網，星島環球網，觀察者，。。。不要太多
: 不多講，直接copy幾句這個網站自己寫的東西,“高舉xxx火炬” 好有中宣部feel，LOL
: 星島環球網 www.stnn.cc
: 友情链接
: 香港文汇报 未名空间 赶集网 天涯聚焦 广东侨网 凯迪网络 今日广东·南方报业海外
: 频道 中军网 香港成报网 新浪厦门 中奢网 亚太日报
: http://www.stnn.cc/Copyright/singtaonet_about.html
: 关于我们
: “。。。 这样的理想和理念，是我们前行的动力，也是我们高举的火炬。强大的资源
: 优势和我们的精干团队是实现这一理想的有力保障。”
|
D**o
发帖数: 2653 | 30 现在是报道一个简单的事实，跟报纸的立场无关，你总不会傻到以为苹果日报登的就是
真相吧。大公报报道这件新闻，可以查阅英方记录的
大公报 英前驻港领事报告狠刮陈李一巴掌
2014-07-18 09:31 大公报
字号：
香港《大公报》7月18日发表题为“英前驻港领事报告狠刮陈李一巴掌”的评论文章，
文章如下：
陈方安生与李柱铭前日在英国会听证会上“作证”，本欲借机攻击中央政府并为“占中
”造势，然而令他们没有想到的是，整场听证会犹如一个“噩梦”，不仅无法得到英国
会的认同，反遭议员的连番质问。经此一事，陈李二人在英国的诚信已告破产。
为什么英议员能够不被陈李言论所误导，真正原因固然在于香港发生的事实本身并无改
变，与此同时，英国有诸多高水平的研究机构，能够准确对香港事务作出判断。而一周
前，英国皇家国际事务研究所一名资深研究员，也是长期在香港总领事馆任职的资深外
交官，他所撰写的一份专家文章，更是无情地刮了陈李一巴掌，也叫世人看清，什么是
颠倒黑白、不知廉耻的香港政客的真正面目。
这名学者叫Dr Tim Summers（夏添恩），需要注意的是，他不仅是一名学者，更是一名
资深外交官，在香港回归前后的关键时期（1997-2001年）于英驻港总领事馆任领事一
职，其后更任英驻重庆总领事。因此，不同于一般的学者，夏添恩亲眼见证了香港由殖
民地到“一国两制”下的种种变迁，什么变了、什么没变，他的研究无疑更具说服力。
他在七月十一日撰写的一篇“专家观点”文章“White Paper Does Not Mark Major
Shift on Hong Kong”（白皮书不意味香港政策的重大转变）中，对白皮书作出详尽的
疏理，指出白皮书根本没有改变任何重大的政策，相反，白皮书引发激烈批评并非因其
内容有问题，而是纯粹由政治因素导致。
白皮书无僭越基本法
例如，夏添恩指出，白皮书提及中央对香港有“全面管治权”，而同时赋予香港有高度
自治权；此说法并没有僭越中英联合声明所订明的权力。人大委员会及其常委会拥有基
本法的解释及修订权；只要香港法庭可以在香港自主范围内解释基本法，此说法亦无不
妥。香港法律界反应虽大，但他们忽略了基本法是全国性的中国法律而中国其他地方并
非採用普通法，北京的确拥有最终解释权。法官被指“治港者”之说，除了英文错译问
题，中文原文清楚显示，根据“港人治港”的理念，视法官为管治者，并没问题，法官
亦没有被指为行政管理者。
夏添恩并指出，从上得出的结论是北京中央政府只是重提对香港长久以来有关“一国两
制”的一贯政策，并没有改变对港的方针及政策。而过去一个月来，香港的政治情况不
断升温，并不是白皮书的内容有问题，而是因为某些政客想寻求在基本法条文之外，另
闢蹊径，实现普选。整件事其实是一种政治操作。（The political situation is
complex, but it is politics and not the text of the White Paper which is
behind the last month's rise in political temperature in Hong Kong.）
真是何其讽刺，连亲眼见证香港“政权移交”的英国外交官都认为，白皮书没有任何重
大政策改变，反倒是某些自诩“香港良心”的反对派在声嘶力竭，这说明了什么？是说
明英国人的精明与高尚，还是说明香港反对派的无知无耻？
当然，反对派媒体一定会有其他解读，要么攻击夏添恩“收钱做事”，要么攻击“漆咸
楼”向中国政府献媚。然而，不论这些媒体如何攻击，也改变不了这名英国前资深外交
官、学者所说的事实。所谓的白皮书摧毁“一国两制”，不过是反对派的政治操弄而已
。真相就是如此。
如果将夏添恩的这篇文章与前日陈李二人于听证会上受到的强烈质问对比，其实已经足
够说明问题。英国作为《联合声明》的签署国，如果连英国人也认为“一国两制”运行
良好，那么陈方安生、李柱铭这些“前英馀孽”的胡言乱语，还有丁点说服力？
身为中国人，陈方安生与李柱铭不断跑到外国去献媚欲引狼入室，这种做法已经令人所
不齿。他们表面上是要反映香港情况、“为港人发声”，但实际上是在为自己的政治利
益拉拢更大的资本。他们意图借这种在国际社会上散播虚假言论的做法，去达到博取同
情，进而借美英势力去对抗中央政府，为“占中”乃至为公民党的余若薇去製造当选的
便利。用另一种说法，这根本是彻头彻尾“假公济私”，以维护“一国两制”的名义去
谋取自己的政治地位与利益。
陈李谎言连篇诚信破产
一如有评论所指出的，从陈李二人前日的表现，整场听证会充斥?是谎言与政治算计，
某程度上说，香港市民应当感谢陈李二人，如果不是他们的谎言与可笑的政治表演，市
民也未必能看清香港的反对派到底有多么丑陋。
对于陈李二人来说，或许没有料想有此种结果。经此一事，其诚信已经破产，日后大概
除了别有用心的美国人外，又岂会再有人相信其编造的谎言？
【在 g***e 的大作中提到】
: 星岛环球网上确实是有这篇文章，不过是“转载”香港《文汇报》。原发的报刊不奇怪
: ，文汇报嘛。星岛转载也不奇怪，看看近十来年星岛集团的历程就知道了。完全不跟政
: 府合作的报刊很难存活的，大陆不例外，香港不例外，美国也不例外。
: 附：
: http://news.stnn.cc/hongkong/2014/0719/117075.shtml
:
: LOL
|
|
|
s*******l
发帖数: 597 | 31 李，陈的心态上就是做惯了奴才，才会以为世界上所以其他人都是奴才样，都会惧怕英
国主子；不然很难理解为什么这两人会跑到英国告土共的状，好像土共会怕似的。 |
D**o
发帖数: 2653 | 32 陳、李抵港後會見傳媒，被記者追問在英國是否受到冷遇。李柱銘說，英國政府是「避
」的態度，「好明顯不想得罪北京，好明顯高級官員不想見我們」。
二人透露，之所以受到英國副首相剋萊格(Nick Clegg)接見，並非英國政府安排，而是
李柱銘通過其加入的國際自由聯盟(Liberal International)要求。
Financial Times的报道，
July 14, 2014 11:03 pm
Hong Kong activists accuse London of turning its back on territory
By Andreas Paleit in London
看标题就知道这两人被英国人打了脸
【在 s*******l 的大作中提到】
: 李，陈的心态上就是做惯了奴才，才会以为世界上所以其他人都是奴才样，都会惧怕英
: 国主子；不然很难理解为什么这两人会跑到英国告土共的状，好像土共会怕似的。
|
w****w
发帖数: 14828 | 33 陳，李二人在英國得不到足夠endorse不足為奇，香港各大報刊都有嚴肅性評論分析。
你主帖引用的一篇非常中宣化的文章，諸如“祸港四人帮”之類的大帽子，無助於
credit.
這篇英文報道遠比你主帖的文彙報宣傳文章更有可讀性，想要人閱讀或認同，至少先回
歸客觀理性。動輒貼標簽送大帽跳腳罵街，只會淪落為街頭小報水準。
我極少讀蘋果，請你勿想當然。閣下如若中意閱讀文匯大公環球此類報章，亦是你自己
選擇。無需多言。
at:
Hong
【在 D**o 的大作中提到】
: 英文版本拜托你也看看。
: http://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/15140
: White Paper Does Not Mark Major Shift on Hong Kong
: Dr Tim Summers
: Senior Consulting Fellow, Asia Programme (based in Hong Kong) - See more at:
: http://www.chathamhouse.org/expert/comment/15140#sthash.9YNKrwcR.dpuf
: A new White Paper published by Beijing has provoked strong reactions in Hong
: Kong for its perceived shift on the policy of the Special Administrative
: Region's autonomy. But it is primarily politics, not the text of the paper
: itself, driving the reaction.
|
l*********u
发帖数: 19053 | 34 丧家犬活该
【在 D**o 的大作中提到】
: 陳、李抵港後會見傳媒，被記者追問在英國是否受到冷遇。李柱銘說，英國政府是「避
: 」的態度，「好明顯不想得罪北京，好明顯高級官員不想見我們」。
: 二人透露，之所以受到英國副首相剋萊格(Nick Clegg)接見，並非英國政府安排，而是
: 李柱銘通過其加入的國際自由聯盟(Liberal International)要求。
: Financial Times的报道，
: July 14, 2014 11:03 pm
: Hong Kong activists accuse London of turning its back on territory
: By Andreas Paleit in London
: 看标题就知道这两人被英国人打了脸
|
D**o
发帖数: 2653 | 35 我早就贴了这篇英文在前面, #309793
事实就是被打了脸。被挖苦几句就受不了了？
【在 w****w 的大作中提到】
: 陳，李二人在英國得不到足夠endorse不足為奇，香港各大報刊都有嚴肅性評論分析。
: 你主帖引用的一篇非常中宣化的文章，諸如“祸港四人帮”之類的大帽子，無助於
: credit.
: 這篇英文報道遠比你主帖的文彙報宣傳文章更有可讀性，想要人閱讀或認同，至少先回
: 歸客觀理性。動輒貼標簽送大帽跳腳罵街，只會淪落為街頭小報水準。
: 我極少讀蘋果，請你勿想當然。閣下如若中意閱讀文匯大公環球此類報章，亦是你自己
: 選擇。無需多言。
:
: at:
: Hong
|
l*****o
发帖数: 9235 | 36 两个丧家犬，想要机关算尽的英国佬，牺牲自己利益来照顾它们个人的权力欲，也不撒
泡尿照照。 |
