the headlines: police in colorado have confirmed 10 people have been killed in a shooting at a supermarket in boulder. among the victims is a local police officer, eric talley — who was the first responder on the scene. one man is in custody — police describe him as a person of interest — and they say there is no continuing threat to the public. several western countries have announced sanctions against officials in china — over the human rights abuses against the uighur population in xinjiang province. the sanctions are part of a coordinated effort by the european union, uk, canada and the us. germany is extending its current lockdown for another three weeks and asking people to stay at home for five days over easter. shops will remain closed and many religious events will be cancelled. chancellor merkel made the announcement after negotiations with 16 regional authorities that went into the early hours.

now on bbc news, it's hardtalk with stephen sackur. welcome to hardtalk. i'm stephen sackur. it seems the biden administration is putting greater emphasis on human rights issues in the already fraught relationship with china. will that prompt beijing to think twice about the crackdown on pro—democracy activism in hong kong? it seems not. in fact, the repression of political dissent is intensifying. my guest is regina ip, chair of the new people's party, member of hong kong's legislative council, and one of beijing's most loyal backers in the territory. is the concept of "one country, two systems" dead? regina ip, in hong kong, welcome to hardtalk.

thank you for having me. it's a pleasure to have you. you are a member of the legislative council, a hong kong lawmaker. in recent months, it seems to many outsiders that the chinese communist party has rendered the legislative council nothing more than a rubber stamp. how do you feel about that? that is totally untrue. in fact, our 15 colleagues

from the so—called pan—democratic camp, they abandoned their duties. they resigned in november, leaving 43 of us to do the work of 70 people, you know. it is their choice, you know, their call to leave the legislative council. right, but... there is no such thing as a crackdown on democracy in hong kong. well, we'll discuss that. but maybe those pro—democracy politicians who chose to walk away from the legislative council saw what was coming down the track, because in the last few days, we've all read about the decision made by the national people's congress that only, quote unquote, true patriots will be allowed to stand and sit in the legislative council. now, what on earth does that mean? a patriot. a true patriot. are you one? definitely. i think labels... you can't use labels too loosely. a lot of our colleagues, so—called democrats, they are actually anti—democratic in their values and in their behaviour in the past decade or more, you know. what we are doing...

what beijing is doing is launching an electoral reform, which is long overdue. fixing the flaws in our system. we can't do it ourselves, because we don't have the two—thirds majority to amend the provisions in the basic law. so the national people's congress has to step in. you know? and i'm confident that after our electoral laws have been improved, hong kong will be relaunched. we will have a better future. well, it will certainly be relaunched, but it will be relaunched in a way which completely undermines the notion of one country, two systems. because what we see here, and you've just basically said it yourself, is that the political system, the political culture in hong kong, is now being redrawn, reshaped by the national people's congress and the leadership of the communist party in beijing. and that runs entirely counter to the way in

which the promises were made in 1997 for hong kong to be given guaranteed special autonomy. well, i have to remind you, i have in my hand the 1984 authentic copy of the sino—british joint declaration. there is nothing in the joint declaration that refers to democracy or universal suffrage. universal suffrage is given to us by beijing, not by the british authorities. and in fact, since 1997, beijing has progressively, with our support, increased the directly elected element in our legislature. but that has not worked well. our democratic experiment has been a downward spiral, because our colleagues, our so—called democratic colleagues, are only democratic in name. what they do actually runs counter to democratic values.

but, miss ip, that, of course, is your subjective opinion. the problem here is that with this new patriot test, there is going to be a power, and it seems the vetting committee will be full, stuffed full, of people loyal to beijing. there is going to be a power which decides who is suitable and who is not suitable to sit in the legislative council. and to any outside observer, it is very obvious that that is beijing's way of snuffing out all pro—democratic opposition to beijing's complete domination of hong kong. patriot rule in hong kong is nothing new. it was already pronounced by mr deng xiaoping repeatedly in the 1980s. a patriot is simply somebody who welcomes hong kong's reunification with china, and who respects the country and will not do anything to undermine the stability and prosperity of hong kong. as simple as that.

if i may say so, is there...? is there not a very important distinction between the notion of a patriot that is somebody who accepts chinese sovereignty and who also plays great store by the basic law that was implemented when hong kong was returned to china in 1997, and is loyal to the concept of hong kong being a special autonomous region... that is one version of patriotism. your version seems to be not so much that, but much more about plain and simple loyalty to the communist party. and to many people that is not patriotism at all. well, i think you misinterpreted me. there is no conflict between the definition of patriotism that i put forward and the idea of respecting china's sovereignty and upholding our separate systems. but, you see, some of our

colleagues, they took the oath of allegiance, but they burned the basic law. they defaced the chinese emblem. they urged young people to pick up independence, go for independence, you know? you cannot possibly regard that as patriotism or respect for china's sovereignty. so... i think respect for... audio breaks up. in your view, then, anybody who is a democrat who says that, "you know, i have a right to express my opinion "that through peaceful means, i want to advocate for a future for hong kong, which, in the long run, "may involve some form of super—autonomy, maybe even separation, from china"... you're saying that however peaceful, however democratic that argument is made, it is fundamentally subversive and criminal. is that what you're saying?

i'm not saying that, but that sort of statement definitely goes against the basic design, legislative intent on the basic law, and the whole purpose of one country, two systems. our separate systems is predicated on us being a part of the country. you know, the sino—british joint declaration, that your ministers are so fond of referring to, the first statement is, "the prc government will resume "the exercise of sovereignty and restore hong kong "to china, 1july1997." the second statement by your government is, "uk will restore hong kong to china." as simple as that. where does it say that we cannot enact national security laws? yes. or we cannot undertake electoral reviews? you're keen on quoting to me thejoint declaration of 1984. i'm rather keener with you on discussing the promises made by beijing in 1997, which included a guarantee of the basic rights of hong kong people to rights which frankly are not enjoyed in mainland china, including the right of free expression, assembly,

all the things which are now being undermined, but also included a commitment, a commitment, to move toward universal suffrage for the election of the chief minister. now, that is patently not happening, and that is china reneging on a treaty agreement. i'm afraid you've got all the facts completely wrong. the national people's congress is not amending the relevant articles in the basic law, which promised universal suffrage as the ultimate goal. but it's not happening, miss ip. it's not happening at all. because of all the upheaval that these so—called democrats fomented in the past two years. actually, ever since the occupy central in 2014, you know, they have been fomenting chaos. you know, opposition to china's sovereignty in the past few years, derailing our progress towards universal suffrage. is it true, miss ip, that this

goes far beyond a patriot test for future members of the legislative council? is it true, as being reported in the local hong kong media, that civil servants are now being required to swear an oath of allegiance to china, and up to 200 have refused and are facing dismissal? is that true? 200 out of a civil service body of over 180,000, which is not surprising at all. the oath is very simple — to uphold the basic law and swear allegiance to the hong kong sar of the people's republic of china. that's very reasonable. so, let's be clear, then, this loyalty, this loyalty test, which has its origins in beijing, which is all about imposing china's will on hong kong, it doesn't just apply to future lawmakers, it applies to civil servants, it presumably applies to other senior public officials, including judges and thejudiciary? so, what is happening here is the complete undermining of hong kong's

autonomous special status? i'm afraid, again, you've got all the facts wrong. you know, the requirement to take oaths in article 104, you know, of the basic law, they have been there since 1997. alljudges have to take similar oaths. it's nothing new, you know, and it's very reasonable. public servants in other parts of the world also have to swear allegiance. and i saw an advertisement by the cia in the economist that they recruit patriotic professionals. what's wrong with that? recruiting patriotic civil servants? does it trouble you that there is now a great deal of fear in hong kong? we have seen that, in essence, every single voice of hong kong opposition — that is the "pro—democracy voice" — has been either jailed, is currently facing charges and trial, or has had to flee into exile overseas.

you're a lawmaker. you are somebody who presumably believes in the right to express opposition to government, in the right to have an individual opinion. does it worry you that there is now this profound fear in your territory? only among those who might have broken the law in the past few years. our freedoms of expression, assembly, association are alive and well. but, ms ip, you keep telling me that it's all about the law, but sometimes the law to a democrat is simply unacceptable. what we have seen with our own eyes is video evidence injanuary, for example, of police rounding up and arresting political activists simply on the grounds that they were involved in a primary election process amongst the pro—democracy political camp to find the most effective candidates to stand in the next

legislative council elections. that was deemed by the police... and we saw it on video where they told people face—to—face it was deemed as subversive activity. you're a politician. how can you accept that being defined as subversive activity? because, number one, there's no place for, there's no legal, you know, position for countries in our system. but, more importantly, why have they organised these primaries to encourage voters to vote for legislators who would veto everything in order to paralyse the legislature and the government and to force out the chief executive? the object of the primaries is to overthrow the government, it's the criminal intent. it's not as simple as you might have seen from tv coverage. with all due respect, you talk of these politicians as though they are revolutionaries throwing molotov cocktails on the streets.

we spoke recently to kenneth chan, a respected professor at hong kong university, founder of the civic party, a man who by no stretch of any imagination could be called a subversive, a terrorist, a criminal, a man who said this — "it is now in our territory a totalitarian drive for control that we are witnessing." well, mr chan has his views, but this is opinion is not shared by the great majority of our citizenry, you know, ever since the implementation of the national security law, it is a fact that law and order has returned to hong kong. and large numbers of us can live without being in fear, without being fearful of being beaten up by people who disagree with our views. you know, if you have lived in hong kong from 2019, through 2019 to early last year, you will have known how much fear, how worried we were about personal safety whenever we go out.

interesting you say that, ms ip, because, as far as i can see, the best way of gauging what hong kongers really feel is to go back to november 2019 and the municipal, the local elections, the last time that anything like a universal suffrage vote was able to be held in hong kong. and you know better than me what the results of that were, that, in 17 of the 18 municipalities, there was a clear win for the pro—democracy forces. your party did so badly. i'm not sure you even won a single seat. that tells you what hong kongers really feel. those elections were held in unfair conditions — my volunteers, my candidates were threatened, our offices were burned down, there was all sorts of vicious propaganda against us plastered on public properties.

it was held against a background of violence and vandalism. you know, those elections actually should not have been held. you make it sound like it was an election held in a time of great turmoil and unrest and voting was impossible. you know what the turnout was? it was over 70%. you know how many seats your party got? zero. zero, ms ip. well, we failed to win seats, but we got more votes than we did in the previous elections. in fact, we got a high percentage of votes in every constituency. i just wonder whether you're prepared to accept that when hong kongers read, as they currently do, that even museums and galleries are being monitored by the authorities because they are not prepared to countenance even artists putting on display pieces that are regarded as disloyal to beijing, when academics are being removed from their university post cos they're deemed not

to be loyal enough to beijing, do you understand that hong kongers regard this as a fundamental threat to the freedoms, the special autonomy they have enjoyed since 1997? we are a free society. people of different political stripes, they have every freedom to express their views on so—called objects or professors, you know, actually pedalling, you know... ..misleading ideologies in university, abusing their positions. excuse me, but i'm just looking at a quote from carrie lam, chief executive, somebody you are very loyal to, saying that the authorities are now on "full alert for any breaches of the national security law when it comes to exhibitions in hong kong." "everybody knows," she says,

"that the red lines are now clearly recognisable. " is that the hong kong you want to live in? i think it is good that the red lines are clearly recognisable so that people will not fall foul of the law, you know, and we are still a much freer society than many democracies. what you seem to be describing, as you say that you support all of these different measures, which, let us not forget, are all inspired in beijing, you seem to be saying that you want hong kong essentially to look more and more like the rest of china, you want a one—party authoritarian style of government, just as we see in the chinese mainland, you want that to come to hong kong. it's unfair to describe china as authoritarian or closed or orwellian, you know — these are typical labels people like you keep on my country. actually, china has made great progress in the past decades, and people have a lot more freedom than before. we are a part of china

and naturally we are... we would be open to the influence of china, but we remain an international city, and there are lots of foreigners, expatriates, living very happily in hong kong. of course, you're part of china, but the entire conversation we've had has been premised upon the notion that there is in hong kong this adherence to the notion of one country, two systems. you were telling me that that is, in effect, dead. that's totally... you are twisting my words. i think "one country, two systems" is alive and well. we have our separate financial system, taxation system, our separate common law system. you know, we have our separate way of life. we speak cantonese, mainlanders speak putonghua. we have our own local culture, entertainment. we have our own culture and values, you know? well, we've just been discussing culture and the new red lines that you say are very important to uphold. so let's move on from culture to what this might mean.

let me quote to you the words of fergus leung, a pro—democracy councillor. he said this. he said, "the chinese communist pa rty�*s latest moves in hong kong mean that burnism is inevitable." now, burnism is a word he created. it basically means, as far as he's concerned, that hardcore pro—democracy people who see no future for peaceful activism in hong kong may be persuaded to take more direct form of action in the concept of, "if we burn, you burn with us." are you worried that, because of this crackdown — you don't like the word, but let's call it a crackdown — that there may be some in hong kong who will take desperate measures to oppose it? it is not a crackdown, and i'm glad you pick up this quote.

it is precisely extremists like the councillor you quoted who chose to embrace this sort of extremism, mutual destruction, you know, all or nothing, that has got us into this position. they should have embraced beijing's offer of universal suffrage for electing a chief executive back in 2014. they should have accepted the liaison office's invitation to have a meal with them. they will not even go into the office of beijing's representation in hong kong. what sort of attitude is that? you know, the art of politics is compromise. right. these people who refuse to compromise, they brought all the troubles, the legal troubles they are in, on themselves. i think the outsiders may be struggling to see where beijing is compromising right now. but the fact is the united states and other powers have imposed targeted sanctions

on hong kong as a result of what china is doing to your politics in hong kong, individuals have been targeted, special trade status has been suspended. it is affecting international business in hong kong. we are seeing some corporates scaling back their investments in hong kong. are you worried about what it's going to do to the long—term prospects for your territory? hong kong has an amazing ability to bounce back from any threats or crises, we have weathered many storms, and i'm sure we'll be around and we will bounce back. and those sanctions are most unfair — they have no right to impose sanctions on us. you know, there's a lot of hypocrisy and fake moral superiority in all their accusations of suppression of human rights. you know, these sanctions are totally unjustifiable.

do you not see a pattern here? i mean, again, i put this point to you as a lawmaker, as somebody who is involved in politics. you see what the chinese government is doing in xinjiang, you see the suppression of the uighur muslim majority in that region of china, you see what china does in tibet. do you not fear... cos you're a hong konger. do you not fear that hong kong's repressive strategy and tactics are being imposed now on your territory and, farfrom opposing it and making a noise about it, you are simply aiding and abetting it? what you just described, did you see it yourself? have you been to xinjiang? i haven't been, but i have close friends who have been to xinjiang for ten years and told me nothing of what you describe is actually true. there is no repression of minorities, definitely no genocide, no forced sterilisation. many individuals, artists, businessmen of uighur descent or other ethnic minorities — they do well. in fact, they are better treated than han people in some ways. you know, i think all that you describe is just

drumming up stories. regina ip, we are out of time, but i do thank you very much indeed forjoining me on hardtalk. thank you. thank you for having me. hello there. many of us started the week dry with some spring sunshine. but things are going to change over the next few days. it is already turning cloudier. it will turn wetter and windier, and briefly for the end of the week, it'll turn quite a bit colder. now, on the satellite picture, you can see a lot of cloud out west. this cloud being brought in our direction by a south—westerly breeze.

as that breeze sets in, it is laden with moisture. so, that is going to deliver a lot of cloud through tuesday, especially across western parts of the uk, where the cloud will squeeze out some spots of light rain and drizzle. and we'll see some more persistent rain pushing into northern ireland and western scotland later in the day, where it will also be turning quite windy. breezy elsewhere, the best of any sunshine across north east scotland, central and eastern parts of england, but generally speaking, it will be cloudier than it was on monday. top temperatures for most between 9—13 degrees. now, through tuesday night, this band of cloud and rain will push south—eastwards out of scotland and northern ireland down into england and wales. clearer spells and some showers following on behind. our band of cloud and patchy rain comes courtesy of a weather front, and this weather front is developing something of a wave. you can see this kink on the weather front here. so, instead of clearing through quickly, the front hangs back across england and wales for a time. cloud and patchy rain, which will only slowly

slide south—eastwards. brightening up for wales and northern england through the day. northern ireland and scotland will see sunshine and a scattering of heavy showers, perhaps becoming more widespread late in the day. temperatures between 10—13 degrees in most places. now, thursday is a sunshine and showers day. some of the showers will be heavy, possibly thundery, most plentiful across northern and western areas, where we could see them joining together to give a spell of more persistent rain later in the day. again, those temperatures around 10—13, maybe 14 degrees. but those temperatures are set to fall. this cold front pushing through as we head into friday, and behind it, you can see showers which could well start to turn wintry over high ground because there'll be some much colder air digging its way in. it's not going to last too long, but friday is going to be a chilly—feeling day. some spells of sunshine, but some showers which could be heavy and wintry over high ground in the north and the west. and those temperatures quite a bit lower, 7—10 degrees.

this is bbc news. i'm sally bundock, with the latest headlines for viewers in the uk and around the world. ten people, including a police officer, are shot dead, by a gunman who fired multiple shots at a supermarket in colorado. one man is in custody. are hearts of — one man is in custody. are hearts of the _ one man is in custody. fife hearts of the community one man is in custody. fife: hearts of the community go one man is in custody. file hearts of the community go out to the victims of this horrific incident. we know of ten fatalities at the scene, including one of our board of pd officers. —— boulder pd officers. the german chancellor confirms an extension to the current coronavirus lockdown — for a further three weeks