CONFIDENTIAL
1
single contracting party it seemed unlikely that in practice
the member countries would wish to take this action. The member
states of the Benelux economic union, which had been in exist-
ence considerably longer than the E.E.C. had made no move in
this direction. Nor had members of any of the newer regional
economic groupings. Moreover, since the G.A.T.T. was a multi-
lateral treaty, not just an international organisation, and the
treaty-making power was of the essence of national sovereignty,
it could well be argued that few countries would wish to take
action of this kind without very good reasons. At present, the
member states of the E.E.C. acted as a unit on some issues in
the G.A.T.T., with one of their number acting as spokesman;
while on others it suited them to speak as individual members.
Mr. Muir agreed that while after British entry Hong Kong
would retain G.A.T.T. rights against the Six, practical consider--
ations would, as had already been pointed out, make it very
difficult for Britain to raise formally in the G.A.T.T. on
2.
Hong Kong's behalf the policies of the Community of which
Britain was by now a member. However, Britain had never in
the past formally invoked Hong Kong's rights in the G.A.T.T.
In fact, on one or two occasions when this had been seriously
considered, we had found the legal basis of Hong Kong's case
to be less firm than had been thought. Where Hong Kong's
rights had been useful had been in support of Hong Kong's
efforts to obtain satisfactory settlements of disputes
bilaterally outside the G.A.T.T. machinery. After British
entry, Hong Kong's rights could still be made use of in this
way by Britain in Brussels, and by both Britain and Hong Kong
in bilateral negotiations with countries outside the enlarged
E.E.C. It was doubtful if the difficulties of invoking formal
.A.T.T. procedures against the Community would be of sty
practical significancu.
DAK... by Ether
@her acco
1€
-gea Hong Kong's G.A.T.T. right; was a matter of national,
/not