There is something peculiarly British about managing to lose an argument twice. The row over China’s proposed “super-embassy” in London manages exactly that trick: a present government that waves it through with a shrug, and a previous one that quietly laid the ground beneath it, then pretended to be appalled by the house it enabled to be built.

Let us be clear about the nature of the state we are dealing with. China is not merely a commercial rival or a distant authoritarian curiosity. MI5 has warned that Chinese intelligence services are actively seeking to disrupt British democracy. Bounties have been placed on the heads of Hong Kong campaigners living in the UK. Members of Parliament have been spied upon. Beijing props up Vladimir Putin’s illegal war in Ukraine while systematically infiltrating universities and businesses to siphon off sensitive technology. This is not paranoia; it is a matter of record.

Against that backdrop, Keir Starmer’s government has decided that approving plans for a vast new Chinese embassy complex is an acceptable risk. Not content with failing to place China in the enhanced tier of the foreign influence registration scheme, or with the limp handling of alleged Chinese spying on MPs, ministers have now rewarded Beijing with exactly what it wants: a diplomatic fortress that critics fear – or should we say “know” – will double as a hub for espionage, not just against Britain but across Europe.

The symbolism alone is astonishing.

The Prime Minister, at the G20 in November 2024, said that the Chinese leader had raised the embassy on a phone call and that the UK had “since taken action” by calling in the planning application. In plain English, Beijing asked and London complied. Starmer then helpfully reported back. For a Labour leader keen to burnish his reputation as a sober defender of national interest, it was a moment of abject submission.

The practical concerns are worse. Earlier this month The Telegraph revealed plans suggesting more than 200 secure rooms and a hidden chamber alarmingly close to critical data cables on which the British economy depends. Yet the Secretary of State who signed off the project admits he had not even seen unredacted plans. He declined to hold closed hearings to examine sensitive evidence. Astonishingly, inspectors concede that China can legally refuse UK authorities access to inspect the building during or after construction. We may never know what is being installed there.

The Government’s defence is that risks can be “mitigated”. That word does a great deal of work for very little reassurance. Mitigation is not elimination; it is an admission that danger remains. It says nothing about how Britain will cope with future advances in Chinese capabilities that cannot be foreseen today. Even the Intelligence and Security Committee, often careful to choose its words, has criticised the process as insufficiently robust, lacking clarity and “dexterity” in dealing with China. That is parliamentary language for incompetence.

Nor is Britain alone in its anxiety. American officials have spoken of risks being “downplayed”. The White House is said to be deeply concerned. The chair of the US House China committee has warned that American data could be put at risk. In an era when the UK claims to prize its intelligence relationship with Washington above almost all else, dismissing such warnings borders on recklessness.

Timing matters too. Approval has come shortly before a planned prime ministerial visit to China, at a moment when the Government is desperate for an economic win after a faltering start marked by rising unemployment and weak growth. The suspicion is unavoidable: national security is being bartered for the hope of an economic deal. It is hard to imagine a starker example of short-termism.

Yet it would be dishonest to pretend this fiasco began with Labour. The land on which this super-embassy will rise was sold under the previous Conservative government, despite its supposed opposition to the project. That was the original sin: a Tory administration talking tough on China while quietly cashing the cheque. Starmer’s government has merely compounded the error by refusing to reverse course when it still could.

China spies on us, subverts our democracy, represses people on our soil and steals our technology. In those circumstances, granting Beijing a sprawling, opaque complex at the heart of the capital is not pragmatism; it is folly. Britain can do business with China without bending the knee. Approving this project suggests a country that has forgotten the difference.

How China Is Systematically Undermining Western Security