The prime minister is expected to approve plans for a new Chinese ‘super embassy’ in London, Sky News understands, after the government delayed the application numerous times.

Despite the controversy, both the UK’s domestic and foreign security services are said to have given their blessing to the decision, which is expected to be formally announced on 10 December.

The Home Office and Foreign Office will also not raise any formal objections to the plan, as long as “mitigations” are put in place to protect national security, The Times, which first reported the development, said.

Politics latest: Follow live updates

News of the decision comes at a time when the UK’s relationship with Beijing is under major scrutiny after recent allegations of spying in parliament.

A security alert to MPs was issued by MI5 on 19 November, warning of new attempts to spy on them by Chinese security services, and there was outrage at the collapse of the trial of two alleged spies in September – claims the pair deny.

It also comes as Sky News reported that Sir Keir Starmer is preparing for a likely visit to China in the new year, potentially at the end of January.

Here is everything we know about the ‘super embassy’ so far.

Where is it – and when was it proposed?

China bought Royal Mint Court for £255m in 2018. It was built over 200 years ago to produce new British coins, but has remained empty since the last gold sovereign was struck there in 1975.

Previously, it had been earmarked for redevelopment as a leisure complex and was home to the Royal Mint between 1809 and 1967.

A planning application to move China’s current embassy near Regent’s Park to the new site, which sits between the financial districts of the City of London and Canary Wharf, was rejected by Tower Hamlets Council in 2022.

It was resubmitted in July 2024, two weeks after Labour won the general election, with Chinese President Xi Jinping asking Sir Keir to intervene personally.

In August that year, the application was “called in” by then housing secretary Angela Rayner, meaning central government took oversight of it from the local council. Building plans were also submitted.

Ms Rayner announced in August that she was delaying approval of the application over part of the building plans being redacted – something anti-China activists suggest could be a tactic to hide facilities for detaining opponents of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).

China claims it has “followed the customary diplomatic practices, as well as necessary protocol and procedures” and that the new embassy is being proposed in the spirit of “promoting understanding and friendship”.

New Housing Secretary Steve Reed then extended the deadline once more, announcing on 21 October that ministers needed more time to discuss the matter.

Greyed-out areas with no clear use

There have been large-scale protests against the embassy and outrage when China refused to explain why large parts of the plans were greyed out.

A public inquiry was held in front of the government’s Planning Inspectorate in February and the findings were presented to Ms Rayner to make a final decision.

She demanded an explanation about rooms in the basement of the building that were “greyed out” in the application.

Hong Kongers exiled in the UK over Chinese allegations of national security crimes have expressed fears that such rooms might be used to detain dissidents.

One, Carmen Lau, told Sky’s Henry Vaughan she believes the embassy would become a “hub of transnational repression” and said she is scared of being held there after a Hong Kong pro-democracy protester was forcibly taken inside the Chinese consulate in Manchester in 2022.

In a letter sent to Ms Lau’s neighbours, Hong Kong Police said a HK$1m bounty was on offer to anyone who could provide information or “take her to Chinese embassy”.

In evidence to the Planning Inspectorate inquiry, Simon Cheng, founder of Hongkongers in Britain, said: “China has been accused of operating illegal ‘overseas police stations’ to silence political opponents and even force them back to China.”

He claimed that “approving this embassy risks legitimising and enabling such activities on British soil”.

And during a debate on the plans in parliament, Liberal Democrat MP Ben Maguire claimed the embassy plans could “seriously increase China’s capacity for surveillance, intimidation and transnational repression against Hong Kong activists here in London”.

The Chinese embassy in London responded to Ms Rayner’s letter in August, expressing “serious concern” over the delay in approving its plans and saying foreign countries have an “international obligation” to support the construction of diplomatic premises.

Read more:
‘I don’t feel safe in the UK’, say Hongkongers

Beijing officials also claimed that the “internal functional layout for embassy projects is different” from other projects, pointing out that plans for the new US-UK embassy at Nine Elms did not include internal layouts.

DP9, the planning consultancy commissioned by the Chinese government, said it would be “inappropriate” to submit complete floor plans.

Other security concerns

Royal Mint Court used to have a trading floor, which was wired to other financial institutions, and is situated near the City of London’s telephone exchange.

China-critic Conservative MP Sir Iain Duncan Smith has said such infrastructure could easily be used for Chinese espionage.

According to a report in The Sunday Times, the White House has warned the UK government against approving the embassy on similar grounds.

Shadow home secretary Chris Philp echoed America’s concerns in June, telling Sky News: “I agree with the United States. We should not be allowing the Chinese to build the super embassy. It is likely to become a base for their pan-European espionage activities.”

The government previously expressed concerns about another part of the embassy site China proposes to keep open – for the public to visit the ruins of a Cistercian abbey and a Chinese cultural centre.

The Home and Foreign Offices said the area poses a “specific public order and national security risks” because, although members of the public would be allowed in, police and the emergency services would not be due to its “diplomatic inviolability”.

China claimed it would allow first responders onto the site if anyone got into difficulty, as a planning condition, but critics remain sceptical.

Residents of flats located within Royal Mint Court are also against the plans as they have concerns that their new landlords will eventually force them out of their homes.

Other people living nearby fear the security risk of regular anti-China protests at the site, with two taking place earlier this year.

What has China said?

China maintains the new embassy is being built to “promote understanding and friendship” with the UK and “develop mutually beneficial cooperation”.

In September, a Chinese embassy spokesperson told Sky News that claims the new embassy poses a potential security risk to the UK are “completely groundless and malicious slander, and we firmly oppose it”.

They added: “Anti-China forces are using security risks as an excuse to interfere with the British government’s consideration over this planning application. This is a despicable move that is unpopular and will not succeed.”

The Chinese embassy in London said in its August statement that planning applications and all necessary protocol have been followed.

The statement said: “The Chinese side urges the UK side to fulfil its obligation and approve the planning application without delay.

“The planning and design of the new Chinese Embassy project is of high quality, which has been well recognised by various professional bodies.

“The planning application has followed the customary diplomatic practices, as well as necessary protocol and procedures. 

Read more:
Hong Kong activists’ UK neighbours ‘bribed’ to hand them in
Tories oppose Chinese super embassy

“In our reply to [the Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government], we have provided a comprehensive response to the questions concerning the planning application.

“It is an international obligation of the host country to provide support and facilitation for the construction of diplomatic premises. Both China and the UK plan to build new embassies in each other’s capitals.”

China has so far refused permission for a new UK embassy in Beijing.

Donald Trump’s plan for ending the war in Ukraine would hand swathes of land to Russia and limit the size of Kyiv’s military, a draft has revealed.

The copy of the proposal that originates from negotiations between Washington and Moscow was obtained by the Associated Press and appears emphatically favourable to Russia.

It closely resembles the list of demands repeatedly stated by the Kremlin since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine nearly four years ago.

Points included in the plan are widely seen as untenable for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, who has rejected Mr Trump‘s previous calls for territorial concessions.

Ukraine war latest – Zelenskyy responds to Trump peace plan

The draft was reportedly devised by Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev.

It says there would be a “decisive coordinated military response” in the event of further Russian incursions onto Ukrainian territory, but does not say what role the United States would play in that response.

A side agreement aims to satisfy Ukrainian security concerns by saying a future “significant, deliberate and sustained armed attack” by Russia would be viewed as “threatening the peace and security of the transatlantic community”.

The agreement – detailed to the AP by an unnamed senior US official – does not obligate the US or European allies to intervene on Ukraine’s behalf, although it says they would “determine the measures necessary to restore security”.

The 28-point plan states Ukraine must cede the entirety of Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk to Russia – despite Ukraine still controlling a third of the latter. Kherson and Zaporizhzhia would be frozen along the existing lines of conflict.

Ukraine’s army, currently at roughly 880,000 troops, would be reduced to 600,000.

Some frozen Russian assets would go toward rebuilding Ukraine, while sanctions on Russia would be lifted and Moscow and Washington would enter in a series of “long-term” economic arrangements.

The document says Ukraine would not be allowed to join NATO, but would be eligible to join the European Union.

It also says elections must be held in Ukraine in 100 days.

Here is the 28-point draft agreement in full:

1. Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.

2. A comprehensive non-aggression agreement will be concluded between Russia, Ukraine and Europe. All ambiguities of the last 30 years will be considered settled.

3. It is expected that Russia will not invade neighbouring countries and NATO will not expand further.

4. A dialogue will be held between Russia and NATO, mediated by the United States, to resolve all security issues and create conditions for de-escalation in order to ensure global security and increase opportunities for cooperation and future economic development.

5. Ukraine will receive reliable security guarantees.

6. The size of the Ukrainian Armed Forces will be limited to 600,000 personnel.

7. Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.

8. NATO agrees not to station troops in Ukraine.

9. European fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.

10. The US guarantee:

– The US will receive compensation for the guarantee;

– If Ukraine invades Russia, it will lose the guarantee;

– If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a decisive coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be reinstated, recognition of the new territory and all other benefits of this deal will be revoked;

Ukraine and Europe cannot reject Trump’s plan – they will play for time

Dominic Waghorn

International affairs editor

@DominicWaghorn

“Terrible”, “weird”, “peculiar” and “baffling” – some of the adjectives being levelled by observers at the Donald Trump administration’s peace plan for Ukraine.

The 28-point proposal was cooked up between Trump negotiator Steve Witkoff and Kremlin official Kirill Dmitriev without European and Ukrainian involvement.

It effectively dresses up Russian demands as a peace proposal. Demands first made by Russia at the high watermark of its invasion in 2022, before defeats forced it to retreat from much of Ukraine.

Its proposals are non-starters for Ukrainians.

It would hand over the rest of Donbas, territory they have spent almost four years and lost tens of thousands of men defending.

Analysts estimate at the current rate of advance, it would take Russia four more years to take the land it is proposing simply to give them instead.

It proposes more than halving the size of the Ukrainian military and depriving them of some of their most effective long-range weapons.

And it would bar any foreign forces acting as peacekeepers in Ukraine after any peace deal is done.

The plan comes at an excruciating time for the Ukrainians.

They are being pounded with devastating drone attacks, killing dozens in the last few nights alone.

They are on the verge of losing a key stronghold city, Pokrovsk.

And Volodymyr Zelenskyy is embroiled in the gravest political crisis since the war began, with key officials facing damaging corruption allegations.

The suspicion is Mr Witkoff and Mr Dmitriev conspired together to choose this moment to put even more pressure on the Ukrainian president.

Perversely, though, it may help him.

There has been universal condemnation and outrage in Kyiv at the Witkoff-Dmitriev plan. Rivals have little choice but to rally around the wartime Ukrainian leader as he faces such unreasonable demands.

The genesis of this plan is unclear.

Was it born from Donald Trump’s overinflated belief in his peacemaking abilities? His overrated Gaza ceasefire plan attracted lavish praise from world leaders, but now seems mired in deepening difficulty.

The fear is Mr Trump’s team are finding ways to allow him to walk away from this conflict altogether, blaming Ukrainian intransigence for the failure of his diplomacy.

Mr Trump has already ended financial support for Ukraine, acting as an arms dealer instead, selling weapons to Europe to pass on to the invaded democracy.

If he were to take away military intelligence support too, Ukraine would be blind to the kind of attacks that in recent days have killed scores of civilians.

Europe and Ukraine cannot reject the plan entirely and risk alienating Mr Trump.

They will play for time and hope against all the evidence he can still be persuaded to desert the Kremlin and put pressure on Vladimir Putin to end the war, rather than force Ukraine to surrender instead.

– If Ukraine launches a missile at Moscow or St Petersburg without cause, the security guarantee will be deemed invalid.

11. Ukraine is eligible for EU membership and will receive short-term preferential access to the European market while this issue is being considered.

12. A powerful global package of measures to rebuild Ukraine, including but not limited to:

– The creation of a Ukraine Development Fund to invest in fast-growing industries, including technology, data centres, and artificial intelligence.

– The United States will cooperate with Ukraine to jointly rebuild, develop, modernise, and operate Ukraine’s gas infrastructure, including pipelines and storage facilities.

– Joint efforts to rehabilitate war-affected areas for the restoration, reconstruction and modernisation of cities and residential areas.

– Infrastructure development.

– Extraction of minerals and natural resources.

– The World Bank will develop a special financing package to accelerate these efforts.

13. Russia will be reintegrated into the global economy:

– The lifting of sanctions will be discussed and agreed upon in stages and on a case-by-case basis.

– The United States will enter into a long-term economic cooperation agreement for mutual development in the areas of energy, natural resources, infrastructure, artificial intelligence, data centres, rare earth metal extraction projects in the Arctic, and other mutually beneficial corporate opportunities.

– Russia will be invited to rejoin the G8.

14. Frozen funds will be used as follows:

– $100bn (£76bn) in frozen Russian assets will be invested in US-led efforts to rebuild and invest in Ukraine;

– The US will receive 50% of the profits from this venture. Europe will add $100bn (£76bn) to increase the amount of investment available for Ukraine’s reconstruction. Frozen European funds will be unfrozen. The remainder of the frozen Russian funds will be invested in a separate US-Russian investment vehicle that will implement joint projects in specific areas. This fund will be aimed at strengthening relations and increasing common interests to create a strong incentive not to return to conflict.

15. A joint American-Russian working group on security issues will be established to promote and ensure compliance with all provisions of this agreement.

16. Russia will enshrine in law its policy of non-aggression towards Europe and Ukraine.

17. The United States and Russia will agree to extend the validity of treaties on the non-proliferation and control of nuclear weapons, including the START I Treaty.

18. Ukraine agrees to be a non-nuclear state in accordance with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

19. The Zaporizhzhia Nuclear Power Plant will be launched under the supervision of the IAEA, and the electricity produced will be distributed equally between Russia and Ukraine – 50:50.

20. Both countries undertake to implement educational programmes in schools and society aimed at promoting understanding and tolerance of different cultures and eliminating racism and prejudice:

– Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities.

– Both countries will agree to abolish all discriminatory measures and guarantee the rights of Ukrainian and Russian media and education.

– All Nazi ideology and activities must be rejected and prohibited.

21. Territories:

– Crimea, Luhansk and Donetsk will be recognised as de facto Russian, including by the United States.

– Kherson and Zaporizhzhia will be frozen along the line of contact, which will mean de facto recognition along the line of contact.

– Russia will relinquish other agreed territories it controls outside the five regions.

Read more
Analysis: Why Zelenskyy has to tread carefully over peace plan, or face a Trump ultimatum
Analysis: What deleted post reveals about ‘secret’ plan to end Ukraine war

– Ukrainian forces will withdraw from the part of Donetsk Oblast that they currently control, and this withdrawal zone will be considered a neutral demilitarised buffer zone, internationally recognised as territory belonging to the Russian Federation. Russian forces will not enter this demilitarised zone.

22. After agreeing on future territorial arrangements, both the Russian Federation and Ukraine undertake not to change these arrangements by force. Any security guarantees will not apply in the event of a breach of this commitment.

23. Russia will not prevent Ukraine from using the Dnieper [Dnipro] River for commercial activities, and agreements will be reached on the free transport of grain across the Black Sea.

24. A humanitarian committee will be established to resolve outstanding issues:

– All remaining prisoners and bodies will be exchanged on an ‘all for all’ basis.

– All civilian detainees and hostages will be returned, including children.

– A family reunification program will be implemented.

– Measures will be taken to alleviate the suffering of the victims of the conflict.

25. Ukraine will hold elections in 100 days.

26. All parties involved in this conflict will receive full amnesty for their actions during the war and agree not to make any claims or consider any complaints in the future.

27. This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by the Peace Council, headed by President Donald J Trump. Sanctions will be imposed for violations.

28. Once all parties agree to this memorandum, the ceasefire will take effect immediately after both sides retreat to agreed points to begin implementation of the agreement.

For most of human history, currency was a direct claim on tangible, productive output. Before the abstraction of government fiat or cryptocurrency, value was stored in things that required real work and resources, bushels of grain, livestock, gold, assets with their own direct productive output: horses, and tragically, slaves.

These were the foundational assets of economies, representing a direct link between labor, resources, and stored value.

As we accelerate into an all-electric, all-digital age, this fundamental link is re-emerging, but with a new unit of account. The 21st-century economy, defined by automated industry, robotic, electric transport, and now power-hungry artificial intelligence, runs on a single, non-negotiable input: electricity. In this new paradigm, the real base currency, the ultimate representation of productive capacity, is the kilowatt-hour (kWh).

The kWh is the new economic base layer.

Advertisement – scroll for more content

Last week, I was in Bijiashan Park at night overlooking Shenzhen, arguably the most technologically advanced city on earth, built over the previous few decades, partly on cheap electricity, cheap labor, and manufacturing innovations.

I could see the giant high-voltage power lines coming over Yinhu Mountain to power the constant light show that is Shenzhen at night. I couldn’t help but think about how cheap electricity and a strong grid have been critical to China’s exceptional economic rise.

As you stroll around the city, you see power everywhere. There are charging stations at every corner, including insane 1 MW charging posts, electric cars and trucks, trucks that carry batteries to electric scooter shops, which are also literally everywhere.

Everything moves on electric power. Industries are powered by electricity, and now, with the advent of AI, virtually everything is increasingly processed by LLMs, which are ultimately powered by electricity through power-hungry data centers.

In a world where everything runs on electricity, electricity itself becomes the currency of civilization.

It is measurable, divisible, storable, and universal – all qualities that a currency needs, but unlike fiat and crypto, it’s actually directly linked to productive output. No politics. No inflation. Just physics.

This concept is not merely academic; it appears to be the quiet, guiding principle in China. While others debate the merits of decentralized digital tokens, China is executing a multi-pronged strategy that treats electricity as the foundational strategic asset it has become.

First, China is building the “mint” for this new currency at an incredible, world-changing scale, and it has retained absolute state control over its distribution. Its deployment of new electricity generation, particularly from renewables, is staggering. The country met its 2030 target of 1,200 gigawatts of renewable capacity five years early, in 2025.

In 2024 alone, renewable energy accounted for a record 56% of the nation’s total installed capacity, with clean generation meeting 84% of all new demand.

Here’s a comparison of electricity generation between China and the US:

If this chart doesn’t scare the West. I don’t know what will. The trend is not reversing any time soon. In fact, it appears to be accelerating as China is doubling down on solar and nuclear.

State-owned monoliths manage this entire system, primarily the State Grid Corporation of China (SGCC), the world’s largest utility. For better or worse, this centralized control allows the state to execute massive national strategies impossible in a liberalized market, such as building an Ultra-High-Voltage (UHV) grid to transmit power from remote solar and wind farms in the west to the power-hungry industrial hubs on its coast.

Second, China wields its control over the grid as a precision tool of industrial policy. China’s average electricity rate of $0.084/kWh is cheaper than most of the rest of the world, but its power lies not in the base price but in its strategic application. The government deploys a “Differential Electricity Pricing” policy: a “stick” that penalizes low-tech, high-consumption industries with higher rates, and a “carrot” that provides preferential pricing to incentivize strategic sectors.

The most potent example is in the AI sector. China is now offering massive electricity subsidies, cutting power bills by up to half, for data centers run by giants like Alibaba and Tencent. The condition for this cheap power is that these companies must use locally-made, Chinese AI chips, such as those from Huawei.

China is spending its “electricity currency” to directly fund the growth of its domestic AI chip industry and sever its dependence on foreign technology. This same logic applies to its global dominance in green tech, where state-subsidized firms like BYD benefit from a state-controlled industrial ecosystem built on reliable, managed power.

Third, and possibly the most explicit exemplification of China viewing electricity as the base currency is its moves against cryptocurrency.

In 2021, the government banned all cryptocurrency transactions and mining. While the official reasons cited financial stability, the move might have had a deeper, strategic intention.

From the state’s perspective, it was a tool for capital flight, allowing wealth to bypass government controls. But in a world where electricity rules, cryptocurrencies are, in effect, a competing “currency” that burns the foundational asset (electricity) to create a decentralized store of value.

By banning crypto, China simultaneously reclaimed its monopoly on economic control and shut down a massive, “wasteful” leak of its most precious resource. It freed up that generating capacity to be strategically allocated to its preferred industries, like AI and manufacturing.

China’s actions, viewed together, are a clear and coherent strategy. By massively investing in and securing total state control over its domestic electricity supply (the “mint”), using its price as a tool to fuel strategic industries, and banning decentralized competitors that consume the same resource, China is making a clear bet. It has been recognized that in an age where all productivity is powered by the grid, the ultimate source of national power is not gold, fiat, or crypto, but the state-controlled kilowatt-hour.

The Blockchain and Crypto: Ledger vs. Furnace

This perspective brings a critical nuance to the role of blockchain technology. In an economy where electricity is the base currency, the blockchain makes perfect sense, but only as a ledger, not as a store of value.

A distributed ledger is the ideal technological layer to act as the accounting system for this new economy. It can track the generation, transmission, and consumption of every kilowatt-hour with perfect transparency. It can automate complex industrial contracts and manage the grid’s load balancing without a central intermediary. In this sense, blockchain is the “banking software” for the electricity standard.

However, “Proof of Work” cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin face a fatal contradiction within this paradigm. They aim to serve as a store of value by burning the base currency (electricity) to secure the network. If the kilowatt-hour is the 21st-century equivalent of gold, then Bitcoin mining is akin to melting down gold bars to print a paper receipt. It destroys the productive asset to create a derivative token.

Bitcoin is quickly losing credibility as a classical safe store of value. It trades like a security, at least over the last year, and its value is only whatever the next moron is willing to pay, with no valuable asset behind it.

China’s strategy reflects this precise understanding. While they ruthlessly banned Bitcoin mining (the “furnace” that wastes the asset), they have simultaneously championed the Blockchain-based Service Network (BSN) and the Digital Yuan. They have embraced the ledger to track and control their energy economy, while rejecting the supposed asset that destroys it.

This is a trap that crypto fans often fall into. They recognize the value of the blockchain, which is real, but they mistakenly broadly assign the same value to cryptocurrency, which is simply an application of the blockchain.

Electrek’s Take

What I’m trying to explore in this op-ed is the idea that if the present is electric and the future is even more electric, then it makes sense for electricity to be the foundation of the economy.

If electricity is the backbone of global trade and the metric of productivity, the kWh ultimately becomes the real currency of a truly electrified world.

And I think China has figured this out, as evidenced by its new electricity generation surpassing the rest of the world combined and by its ban on cryptocurrency.

They are going to let the rest of the world hold the crypto bag while they have more electricity generation than anyone to power their industries, which are already taking over the world.

I think the rest of the world should learn from this. Instead of pouring capital into meme coins and made-up stores of value, we should invest in electricity generation and storage.