Pubblicato in: Cina, Devoluzione socialismo, Economia e Produzione Industriale

Cina – Germania. L’ipertrofico superego tedesco scontra la dura realtà.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-12-11.

Manicomio 001

Ad ogni azione corrisponde una reazione eguale e contraria.

Questo principio è valido sia per la dinamica, sia per la politica e per i rapporti umani.

La posizione tedesca è stata ribadita con forza dalla Bundeskanzlerin Frau Merkel nella sua recente visita in Cina e, subito dopo, il Ministro degli esteri Mass ha rincarato la dose:

«Foreign Minister Heiko Maas on Tuesday called on China to comply with its human rights obligations and urged Beijing to clarify its position on interning Muslim minorities in prison camps.

Maas’ comments come two days after leaked documents revealed how China suppressed members of its Muslim minority population in Xinjiang province with systematic surveillance and mass internment. 

Rights groups estimate that around a million Uighurs and members of other Muslim minority groups have been detained in so-called reeducation camps in northwest China. 

“China must meet its international obligations on human rights,” Maas said in Berlin.»

* * *

Molte le cose che dovrebbero essere meglio chiarite: ne riporteremo solo alcune.

– Ciò che i liberal tedeschi intendono per ‘human rights’ è una loro particolarissima visione, per nulla condivisa al di fuori dei socialisti europei. Per non parlare poi della sua incoerenza logica.

– I tedeschi però si credono depositari di una verità assoluta così come si sentono autorizzati a fare la lezioni a tutto il resto del mondo, che delle loro idee non ve vuole proprio sapere. In termini tecnici, sarebbe un’idea delirante.

– È questa una situazione di arrogante protervia che il mondo recepisce come uggia mal sopportabile. I superbi presuntuosi sono sgradevoli e sgraditi.

*

Però, in inglese l’uso della voce verbale ‘must‘ è molto forte: corrisponde ad un imperativo categorico.

Ne discendono due possibili conseguenze:

– o la Germania invade la Cina, ne rovescia il governo e vi installa una compagine liberal,

— oppure interrompe completamente i rapporti con i paesi che lei stimi non rispettare ciò che considerano ‘human rights’, Cina in primis.

*

Nei fatti invece non accade nulla di tutto questo.

I tedeschi continuano imperterriti a pontificare il loro gospel e nel contempo si dolgono che le loro aziende non riescano a penetrare e prosperare in Cina.

Dal loro punto di vista i cinesi altro non sono che degli ingrati che rifiutano di essere illuminati e guidati dai liberal tedeschi.

«Human rights advocates say Germany can do more to support Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement and condemn the Uighur camps in Xinjiang, but business interests stand in the way»

«Since Hong Kong’s anti-government demonstrations began in June, the pro-democracy movement has been pleading for international support. And the recent confirmation of China’s systematic internment of Muslim Uighurs in the country’s western Xinjiang province has strengthened international calls for action against China’s human rights abuses»

«Now, human rights advocates and some German politicians are calling for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to take a stronger stance on human rights issues in China»

«In a speech to the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce on November 27, Merkel said that Germany and Europe find themselves in a global competition. “There is, on the one hand, the United States, a haven of economic freedom, and on the other, a system in China, which is socially organized in a completely different way, with a pronounced state-owned, and sometimes repressive, character.”»

«After Merkel’s visit to Beijing in September, Joshua Wong, a prominent Hong Kong pro-democracy activist, said he was “disappointed” that the German leader did not “clearly call for free elections in Hong Kong.”»

«Although Germany has joined 22 countries at the United Nations in signing an official statement condemning the Xinjiang Uighur internment camps, Berlin, and the EU, have yet to come up with a common framework for action, and Merkel has been criticized for being too soft in condemning the camps.»

«”The extent of human rights violations has greatly increased under President Xi Jinping. It is inappropriate to court the Chinese party-state in this situation — as Germany is doing with a special EU-China summit scheduled to take place in Leipzig in 2020,” said Kinzelbach»

*

«After Merkel’s China trip in September, the chief of German industrial giant Siemens, Joe Kaeser, warned Germany against taking too critical a stance, and advocated being “thoughtful and respectful” toward China. “If jobs in Germany depend on how we deal with controversial topics, then we shouldn’t add to indignation, but rather carefully consider all positions and actions,” said Kaeser in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt

«Siemens, along with BASF and VW, operate factories in Xinjiang»

«relationship as China is one of Germany’s most important trade partners with bilateral commerce reaching €199.3 billion ($221.2 billion) in 2018.»

«Unfortunately, we now have a very tricky situation that we are in a relationship of mutual dependency with China»

«However, any sanctions regime targeting China-related human rights abuses would also have to be made within the framework of the European Union, and this is complicated by the disparity of positions in the EU on China policy»

«In the long term, democracy and human rights should be put higher than economic profit, because we see that China is a dictatorship and you never know how economic growth can develop in a dictatorship»

* * * * * * *

Gli industriali tedeschi che producono in Cina, ovvero commerciano con essa, stanno sempre più dissociandosi dalla politica di Frau Merkel. È un interscambio di 221 miliardi di Usd, cifra di tutto riguardo anche per la Germania.

Poniamo infine un sola domanda:

“Ma chi si credono di essere i tedeschi”?

*


Why is Germany silent on China’s human rights abuses?

Human rights advocates say Germany can do more to support Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement and condemn the Uighur camps in Xinjiang, but business interests stand in the way.

Since Hong Kong’s anti-government demonstrations began in June, the pro-democracy movement has been pleading for international support. And the recent confirmation of China’s systematic internment of Muslim Uighurs in the country’s western Xinjiang province has strengthened international calls for action against China’s human rights abuses.

Now, human rights advocates and some German politicians are calling for German Chancellor Angela Merkel to take a stronger stance on human rights issues in China.

Last week, US President Donald Trump signed human rights legislation supporting the pro-democracy movement in Hong Kong, and on Tuesday, US lawmakers passed the “Uighur Human Rights Policy Act,” which calls for “targeted sanctions” on members of the Chinese government.

However, during six months of unrest in Hong Kong, and the ongoing reports of minority oppression in Xinjiang, Chancellor Merkel has been careful not to explicitly support the pro-democracy movement, or condemn the internment camps.

“It is time for Angela Merkel to put it [Xinjiang] on the agenda of the upcoming European Council to talk of a common European perspective on imposing sanctions,” Gyde Jensen, head of the human rights committee in the German Parliament, the Bundestag, told DW News Asia.

What has Merkel said?

In a speech to the Association of German Chambers of Industry and Commerce on November 27, Merkel said that Germany and Europe find themselves in a global competition. “There is, on the one hand, the United States, a haven of economic freedom, and on the other, a system in China, which is socially organized in a completely different way, with a pronounced state-owned, and sometimes repressive, character.”

In November, Chancellor Merkel told the Bundestag that Germany must “of course criticize” when hearing reports of Uighur internment camps, without specifying whom, and added she supported the EU’s position on the issue, along with allowing UN human rights officials access to Xinjiang.

On Hong Kong, she said, it was a “good sign” that the city’s district elections were “peaceful,” adding that the free expression of public opinion was an example of “one country, two systems.”

‘Peaceful solution’ for Hong Kong?

Hong Kong’s relations with Beijing since 1997 have rested on the concept of “one country, two systems,” which recognizes Hong Kong as a part of China, albeit with a different economic and administrative system.

Hong Kong’s pro-democracy movement demands a direct popular vote to elect the city’s chief executive, but Beijing prefers to retain its power to appoint a Communist Party loyalist to the post. 

After Merkel’s visit to Beijing in September, Joshua Wong, a prominent Hong Kong pro-democracy activist, said he was “disappointed” that the German leader did not “clearly call for free elections in Hong Kong.”

Katrin Kinzelbach, a professor of international human rights policy at Germany’s University of Erlangen-Nuremberg, said that the German government should take a “clear position” on Hong Kong. 

“The district election results show that Hong Kongers do not want to be ‘directly’ governed by Beijing,” she said. “This message should be supported by the German government in public statements.”

Parliamentary human rights chairwoman Jensen said on social media after meeting with Wong in September that Germany needs to “stand behind” the peaceful demonstrators in Hong Kong that are fighting for “liberal rights and the promise of one country, two systems.”

Support for the Uighur? 

Although Germany has joined 22 countries at the United Nations in signing an official statement condemning the Xinjiang Uighur internment camps, Berlin, and the EU, have yet to come up with a common framework for action, and Merkel has been criticized for being too soft in condemning the camps.

“The ongoing reports of more than a million Uighurs being held in camps in Xinjiang are absolutely appalling … China must now undertake clear steps to improve the human rights situation in Xinjiang,” said Bärbel Kofler, Germany’s commissioner for human rights policy and humanitarian assistance, who plays an advisory role to the foreign ministry on policy questions.

“The extent of human rights violations has greatly increased under President Xi Jinping. It is inappropriate to court the Chinese party-state in this situation — as Germany is doing with a special EU-China summit scheduled to take place in Leipzig in 2020,” said Kinzelbach.

Business as usual in China

After Merkel’s China trip in September, the chief of German industrial giant Siemens, Joe Kaeser, warned Germany against taking too critical a stance, and advocated being “thoughtful and respectful” toward China.

“If jobs in Germany depend on how we deal with controversial topics, then we shouldn’t add to indignation, but rather carefully consider all positions and actions,” said Kaeser in an interview with German newspaper Die Welt.

Siemens, along with BASF and VW, operate factories in Xinjiang.

After the US human rights act was signed by Trump last week, activist Joshua Wong asked the German government to follow the example of the US and create a mechanism for sanctions.

However, the US is in the middle of an ongoing trade and economic dispute with China, and has more international clout. Berlin treads more carefully with Beijing and has tried to maintain a less volatile relationship as China is one of Germany’s most important trade partners with bilateral commerce reaching €199.3 billion ($221.2 billion) in 2018.

“Of course, the German government must reconcile different interests in its China policy, including economic interests,” said human rights scholar Kinzelbach.

“Unfortunately, we now have a very tricky situation that we are in a relationship of mutual dependency with China. For a democracy like Germany, it is not only morally problematic, but downright dangerous to bond so closely with a dictatorship.”

What can Germany do?

“Given the escalation in Hong Kong, it would be correct — and comparatively easy — to review existing export regulations,” said Kinzelbach, adding that sanctions available to address human rights violations could include arms embargoes, restrictions on entry for individuals and the freezing of accounts.

“Europe should not export tear gas and ammunition to Hong Kong,” said Kinzelbach. “A police district that uses excessive force should be afraid of consequences.”

However, any sanctions regime targeting China-related human rights abuses would also have to be made within the framework of the European Union, and this is complicated by the disparity of positions in the EU on China policy.

“Germany could be a driving force within the EU on taking steps in this direction, but this hasn’t happened yet,” said Kinzelbach. “Unfortunately, Europe does not always speak with one voice to China.”

Chancellor Merkel said in November that it would be “dangerous” for every EU state to conduct its own China policy, and for Europe to send different signals.

“In the long term, democracy and human rights should be put higher than economic profit, because we see that China is a dictatorship and you never know how economic growth can develop in a dictatorship,” said Jensen. 

Pubblicato in: Cina, Devoluzione socialismo

Cinesi. Hanno perso la pazienza. Xinjiang.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2019-10-10.

Pechino-Cina

«50 international ambassadors to the UN Office at Geneva have co-signed a letter to the president of the UN Human Rights Council and High Commissioner for Human Rights recently, commending Xinjiang’s achievements on human rights, counterterrorism and deradicalization»

«China on Tuesday lodged resolute opposition to the United States and urged the U.S. side to cancel the relevant event, and stop making irresponsible remarks and interfering in China’s internal affairs by using human rights excuses»

«Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang made the remarks at a press briefing in response to Xinjiang-related questions. He said that recently the U.S. side has repeatedly slandered and smeared China’s policies on the governance of Xinjiang by using religious and human rights excuses, adding that it is particularly wrong to hold the so-called panel discussion during the UN General Assembly»

«The U.S. State Department announced in a statement that U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan will hold a panel discussion regarding Xinjiang with relevant countries’ permanent representatives to the UN and non-governmental partners on Tuesday»

Gli occidentali amano salire in cattedra e bacchettare e destra e manca gli stati che, a dir loro, non aderiscono agli human rights così come sono intesi dai liberal democratici americani.

Similmente, non si scompongono certo a fomentare e sostenere rivolte locali e franco terrorismo in casa altrui.

La presa di posizione di Mr Geng Shuang, portavoce del Ministro degli Esteri cinese dovrebbe essere molto chiara.

Ma forse i 241 arresti sono stati miglior deterrente: la stampa liberal non parla proprio più di Hong Kong.

Tutte le pazienze hanno dei limiti, e la Cina non tollera certo ingerenze nei suoi problemi interni.

*


China urges US to stop interfering in internal affairs through human rights excuses

China on Tuesday lodged resolute opposition to the United States and urged the U.S. side to cancel the relevant event, and stop making irresponsible remarks and interfering in China’s internal affairs by using human rights excuses.

Foreign Ministry spokesperson Geng Shuang made the remarks at a press briefing in response to Xinjiang-related questions. He said that recently the U.S. side has repeatedly slandered and smeared China’s policies on the governance of Xinjiang by using religious and human rights excuses, adding that it is particularly wrong to hold the so-called panel discussion during the UN General Assembly.

The U.S. State Department announced in a statement that U.S. Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan will hold a panel discussion regarding Xinjiang with relevant countries’ permanent representatives to the UN and non-governmental partners on Tuesday.

The question of Xinjiang is about fighting separatism and violent terrorism, not about religion or human rights, reiterated Geng, adding that Xinjiang’s measures against terrorism and radicalization are, in their essence, the pursuit of justice, civility and the rule of law in the face of evil, brutality and violence. These efforts deserve support, respect and understanding from the international community, Geng added.

Geng said 50 international ambassadors to the UN Office at Geneva have co-signed a letter to the president of the UN Human Rights Council and High Commissioner for Human Rights recently, commending Xinjiang’s achievements on human rights, counterterrorism and deradicalization.

In recent months, some 1,000 foreign diplomats, officials and journalists have visited Xinjiang, and they all recognized and applauded local efforts to fight and prevent terrorism in accordance with the law.

However, the U.S. side has turned a blind eye to China’s counterterrorism and deradicalization efforts as well as voices supporting such efforts, Geng said.

No matter what the U.S. says or does, China will, as it always has, implement its policy in Xinjiang, said Geng, adding that Xinjiang’s continued prosperity, stability, ethnic unity and social harmony are obvious to all, and facts will triumph over lies.

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Germania e Turkia. Verso la rottura. – Bloomberg

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-07-29.

2017-07-29__Merkel__001 800x-1

Come è noto, Bloomberg edita un giornale elettronico pubblico ed uno ad accesso privato, il Bloomberg Business Week, su cui sono riportati gli articoli di maggior peso ed interesse, ad uso di un pubblico tipicamente specialistico.

I titoli ed i contenuti sono sempre molto sobri: rifuggono ogni possibile allarmismo.

L’articolo che riportiamo, sia pure parzialmente a causa del copyright che lo copre, ha un titolo abbastanza preoccupante, ed è a firma di Mr Chad Thomas e di Mr Rainer Buergin, due editorialisti sempre molto pacati in giudizi e conclusioni.

Si ventila la concreta possibilità di rottura nei rapporti turko – tedeschi. Con tutte le conseguenze, che non sono per nulla da poco.

Il problema è anche economico, vi è un interscambio di quasi quaranta miliardi l’anno, ma soprattutto è politico.

In Germania vivono molti milioni di turki anche di seconda o terza generazione: sono perfettamente integrati con lingua ed attitudini lavorative, ma sono e restano turki. Orbene, nelle recenti vicende politiche essi si sono in larga maggioranza schierati pro Erdogan, personaggio che al momento l’establishment tedesco identifica come avversario temibile. Detta dirigenza attuale tedesca accusa quindi i turki di vivere, lavorare e godere i benefici della Germania senza essersi integrati, facendo un ardito salto logico che farebbe coincidere la Germania con la Dirigenza attuale tedesca. La Merkel non è la Germania, ribattono i turki, non senza ragione.

*

Il grande nodo del contendere è costituito da fatto che Frau Merkel non intende trattare con persone e stati che non condividano pienamente e totalmente il suo modo di concepire diritti umani e democrazia. Posizione rigida, che ha portato già Frau Merkel in rotta di collisione con l’Arabia Saudita, la Polonia e l’Ungheria, nonché ad attriti severi con gli Stati Uniti del Presidente Trump.

Ma la concezione di Frau Merkel di cosa siano e come si applichino i diritti umani e la democrazia non è certo universalmente riconosciuto, e vi sarebbe molto da discutere.

Occorre però prendere atto che per Frau Merkel essi sono conditio sine qua non.

*

Non è problema da poco.

Se è vero che la Germania condiziona in modo pesante tutta l’Unione Europea, con le sequenziali conseguenze per la Polonia e l’Ungheria, è altrettanto vero che la Germania è incardinata nella Nato, proprio come Polonia, Ungheria e Turkia.

La Turkia governa i Dardanelli e potrebbe anche riaprire il passaggio ai migranti del Medio Oriente. Ma potrebbe anche riconsiderare la sua posizione all’interno della Nato, riconsiderazione in corso anche nei paesi del Visegrad.

Sono tutte tensioni delle quali il mondo farebbe volentieri a meno e che la Germania non ha modo di condizionare a tempo indefinito: qualche capriccio è comprensibile, ma soltanto se resta senza conseguenze pratiche per tutto il sistema delle alleanze. In tale caso, ripetiamo per chiarezza, da problema di Frau Merkel diventa problema mondiale, e potrebbe anche portare a soluzioni alquanto drastiche.

*

Verosimilmente gli autori di Bloomberg hanno avuto accesso a qualche informazione non diffusa e, forse, non diffondibile.

Di certo, la rigidità tedesca appare difficilmente spiegabile, anche perché potrebbe generare a dire di Bloomberg a controreazioni tali da portare alla fine dell’epoca Merkel.

Ricordiamo soltanto come la rigidità mentale e diplomatica tedesca abbia caratterizzato il secolo scorso con esperienze che ben pochi gradirebbero ripetersi.


Bloomberg Business Week. 2017-07-28. Germany and Turkey Are at a Breaking Point

Long codependent, the two have been battling over human rights and democratic values. Both have a lot to lose, including an election for Merkel.

*

Germany and Turkey have deep ties, with millions of ethnic Turks living in Germany, millions of Germans flocking to Turkey’s beaches and historic cities, and almost 7,000 German companies—from giants such as Deutsche Bank, Siemens, and Volkswagen to tiny importers of textiles and food—doing business there. Add it all up, and trade between the two tops $36 billion a year.

[Articolo riportato parzialmente a causa del copyright]

Pubblicato in: Devoluzione socialismo, Unione Europea

Regno Unito. Abbandonare la European convention on human rights.

Giuseppe Sandro Mela.

2017-06-07.

westminster-palace-01

È buona norma del comportamento politico non parlare mai direttamente dei problemi reali in pubblico. Quasi invariabilmente la gente non li capirebbe né ne comprenderebbe la reale portata.

Mrs May ha fatto in questo una notevole eccezione, proponendo il problema della European convention on human rights (Echr), e facendolo proprio a ridosso della tornata elettorale politica.

*

Official text of the European Convention on Human Rights. [Council of Europe]

Protocols to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. [Council of Europe]

Database of European Human Rights Court (Strasbourg) judgments

*

«The European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) (formally the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) is an international treaty to protect human rights and fundamental freedoms in Europe. Drafted in 1950 by the then newly formed Council of Europe, the convention entered into force on 3 September 1953. All Council of Europe member states are party to the Convention and new members are expected to ratify the convention at the earliest opportunity.

The Convention established the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Any person who feels his or her rights have been violated under the Convention by a state party can take a case to the Court. Judgments finding violations are binding on the States concerned and they are obliged to execute them. The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe monitors the execution of judgements, particularly to ensure payment of the amounts awarded by the Court to the applicants in compensation for the damage they have sustained. ….

The Convention is drafted in broad terms, in a similar (albeit more modern) manner to the English Bill of Rights, the U.S. Bill of Rights, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man or the first part of the German Basic law. Statements of principle are, from a legal point of view, not determinative and require extensive interpretation by courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations.» [Fonte]

*

«The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR or ECtHR; French: Cour européenne des droits de l’homme) is a supra-national or international court established by the European Convention on Human Rights. It hears applications alleging that a contracting state has breached one or more of the human rights provisions concerning civil and political rights set out in the Convention and its protocols. An application can be lodged by an individual, a group of individuals or one or more of the other contracting states, and, besides judgments, the Court can also issue advisory opinions. The Convention was adopted within the context of the Council of Europe, and all of its 47 member states are contracting parties to the Convention. The Court is based in Strasbourg, France.» [Fonte]

* * * * * * *

I principi stabiliti dalla European Convention on Human Rights dovrebbero essere vincolanti per tutti gli stati membri dell’Unione Europea e le sentenze emesse dalla European Court of Human Rights dovrebbero avere valore sovrannazionale.

Se si potesse abbandonare il fraseggio politicamente corretto, i problemi in questa materia sarebbero facilmente esprimibili.

– La Convenzione, ma soprattutto le sentenze rese dalla Corte, hanno definito come “diritti fondamentali” elementi che per loro natura tali non erano, non sono né possono essere, e nel definire tali “diritti” non ha mai definito i relativi “doveri“. Nel contempo, la Corte ha dismesso il “diritto alla vita“, relegandone la validità solo dopo che la vita fosse in essere da un tempo definito in via amministrativa. Queste con incoerenze sottominano severamente la logica dell’apparato giuridico.

– La European Court of Human Rights ha apertamente ammesso come la amministrazione della giustizia “require extensive interpretation by courts to bring out meaning in particular factual situations“. Questo criterio operativo ha permesso alla Corte di esprimere sentenze più in via politica che legale, ponendosi di fatto come legislatore autorizzato a variare il contenuti sostanziali della European Convention on Human Rights. Essendo queste sentenze non appellabili, la Corte è diventata il vero organo politico deliberante ed esecutivo dell’Unione Europea, pur non avendo vidimazione alcuna da voto popolare.

– Nel caso specifico del Regno Unito, essendo la sua giurisprudenza basata sul Common Law, le sentenze della European Court of Human Rights esercitano un peso ben diverso da quello che hanno su stati che per recepire le sentenze devono introdurre e/o variare le leggi. Ne risentono direttamente, e questo non è tollerabile per gli inglesi, giustamente, si potrebbe aggiungere.

*

«The Conservatives have promised not to withdraw from the European convention on human rights during the next parliament but they could begin to try to replace or amend parts of the Human Rights Act after the UK leaves the EU.»

*

«It is possible May’s plans could involve seeking further derogations from the ECHR. This is the way the government is seeking to prevent human rights claims against soldiers in future military situations»

*

Questo è il cuore del problema. Il resto è dettaglio operativo.


The Guardian. 2017-06-07. May: I’ll rip up human rights laws that impede new terror legislation

PM says she is looking at making it easier to deport foreign suspects as she seeks to gain control of security agenda before election.

*

Theresa May has declared she is prepared to rip up human rights laws to impose new restrictions on terror suspects, as she sought to gain control over the security agenda just 36 hours before the polls open.

The prime minister said she was looking at how to make it easier to deport foreign terror suspects and how to increase controls on extremists where it is thought they present a threat but there is not enough evidence to prosecute them.

The last-ditch intervention comes after days of pressure on May over the policing cuts and questions over intelligence failures, following terror attacks on London Bridge, Manchester and Westminster.

She said: “But I can tell you a few of the things I mean by that: I mean longer prison sentences for people convicted of terrorist offences. I mean making it easier for the authorities to deport foreign terror suspects to their own countries.

“And I mean doing more to restrict the freedom and the movements of terrorist suspects when we have enough evidence to know they present a threat, but not enough evidence to prosecute them in full in court.

“And if human rights laws stop us from doing it, we will change those laws so we can do it.”

The proposed measures appear to be an attempt at strengthening terrorism prevention and investigation measures (Tpims) rather than a complete return to Labour’s control orders, which were repeatedly struck down by the courts and then scrapped by May in 2010 when she was home secretary.

They could involve further curfews, restrictions on association with other known extremists, controls on where they can travel and limits on access to communication devices.

She could even increase the period for which terror suspects can be held without trial, currently 14 days – a move that provoked clashes with civil liberties campaigners when Tony Blair attempted it after the 7 July 2005 attacks.

May told the Sun she would consult the intelligence agencies about what they think is needed: “When we reduced it to 14 days, we actually allowed for legislation to enable it to be at 28 days. We said there may be circumstances where it is necessary to do this. I will listen to what they think is necessary for us to do.”

The Conservatives have promised not to withdraw from the European convention on human rights during the next parliament but they could begin to try to replace or amend parts of the Human Rights Act after the UK leaves the EU.

It is possible May’s plans could involve seeking further derogations from the ECHR. This is the way the government is seeking to prevent human rights claims against soldiers in future military situations.

Earlier in the day, the prime minister tried to return her election campaign to the issues of Brexit and her leadership, as the Tories’ poll lead over Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour remained narrow.

But she continued to face a barrage of questions over the impact of cuts to policing. Sadiq Khan, the Labour mayor of London, said planned cuts of 10-40% in London over the next four years would make it “harder to foil terrorist attacks on our city”.

May was then repeatedly challenged about how the Home Office, police and intelligence services dealt with the information relating to the attackers, after Boris Johnson, her foreign secretary, said MI5 had questions to answer. One of the attackers, Khuram Butt, 27, had been reported to the anti-terror hotline in 2015 and a third attacker, Youssef Zaghba, 22, had been detained by Italian authorities in 2016.

Zaghba, named by police for the first time yesterday, was put on an international terrorism database for an attempt to travel to Syria in March 2016 which was thwarted after he allegedly told officials at Bologna: “I am going to be a terrorist.” But this does not seem to have been spotted by UK intelligence agencies.

His mother, Valeria Collina, told the Italian news magazine L’Espresso that her son was “friends” with the two other men and monitored by Italian officials after his failed journey to Syria.

May said she “absolutely recognised people’s concerns” and added that she expected the intelligence agencies to launch a review of the London Bridge attack.

“We need to look at how the terror threat is evolving, the way that terrorism is breeding terrorism and the increased tempo of attacks. We have had three horrific attacks and we have foiled five others. The tempo is there in a way we haven’t seen before,” she said.

“We will look at how the processes were followed, what they did. They will want to be looking at that because they will want to learn lessons for the future, if there are those lessons to be learned.”

She added: “The police and security service have done a good job in foiling a number of plots – just five in the last three months, and a significant number in the last few years as well.”

May declined to say whether Zaghba had been monitored or subject to an exclusion order when he returned to the UK after being stopped in Italy, and declined an opportunity to apologise for any failures by the intelligence agencies.

Despite having previously said she believed the police and security services had the resources they needed to deal with terrorism, she went on to announce details of a proposed crackdown on terrorism at a rally of Conservative activists in Slough.

Her remarks suggested that if she is re-elected her government could look to step up the use of orders that restrict the movement of terror suspects.

There are currently only seven terror suspects considered enough of a threat to be given Tpims, while there are about 23,000 people considered to have been subjects of interest by the security services. Tpims, which expire after two years, can include overnight curfews of up to 10 hours, electronic tagging, reporting regularly to the police, exclusion from certain zones, enforced relocation and some limitations on use of a mobile phone and the internet.

Elements of the orders could be strengthened but any attempt to return to the 18-hour-a-day curfews imposed by control orders would be likely to end up in the courts.

May’s proposals follow criticism from Labour and other parties about her cuts to policing and approach to tackling terrorism in the Home Office, which she led for six years. Corbyn accused the prime minister on Sunday night of trying to “protect the public on the cheap” by implementing 20,000 police cuts.

The prime minister has also been accused of politicising her response to the London Bridge terror attack when she addressed the nation outside Downing Street on Sunday. She declared “enough is enough” as she announced plans to
introduce new anti-terror laws, without going into details about what
she would do.

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said: “You can’t keep our country safe on the cheap. Theresa May is refusing to put in the resources that are needed. She has slashed funding for the police, our courts system and border force.

“I will do everything necessary and effective to keep our people safe. We will always keep the law under review, but don’t believe would-be terrorists and suicide bombers will be deterred by longer sentences or restricting our rights at home.

“The right response to the recent attacks is to halt the Conservative cuts and invest in our police and security services and protect our democratic values, including the Human Rights Act.

“It is disgraceful that the Conservative government is suppressing its own report into terrorist funding. We will not shy away from the difficult conversations about who funds and supports terrorism.”

Tim Farron, the Lib Dem leader, said May was only “posturing about being tough on terror”. He added: “In her years as home secretary she was willing to offer up the police for cut after cut. We have been here before – a kind of nuclear arms race in terror laws might give the appearance of action, but what the security services lack is not more power, but more resources. And responsibility for that lies squarely with Theresa May.”

The London Bridge attack on Saturday night left seven people dead, and 15 remain in hospital in critical condition. Raids and searches of properties in east London continue, but 12 others arrested as part of inquiries into whether anyone else helped the attackers have been released without charge.