7. I would emphasise that we have not yet consulted Hong Kong. We know that when these discriminatory proposals were tabled Dodge
the Counsellor for Hong Kong's commercial affairs in Brussels) was
ongly in favour of a formal protest, but nothing has been heard from Hong Kong. Nevertheless because we think that there is a strong case for not delaying any representations, we propose to suggest to Hong Kong an approach to the Commission setting out our ideas on form, timing and content. I should be grateful for your
views.
8. Since drafting the above I have seen Christofas' letter of 24 October to Goldsmith (but not the related correspondence) about Ernst's suggestion of informal discussions. I am inclined to agree with Christofas that we should take up Ernst's suggestion (after all Ernst has already made direct contact with Hong Kong officials) provided that Hong Kong see no objection. Presumably they will see none: Jordan has himself said that in this complicated matter a great deal has to be left to the men on the spot and no doubt Dodge, their representative in Brussels, is aware of the position. So far as I can see informal discussions with Ernst in early December need not be inconsistent with the more formal approach to the Commission we are proposing; I agree with Christofas that Ernst ought to be warned that we are considering such an approach.
9.
I am copying this letter to Christofas (UKDEL Brussels) and to Ingram (CRE 3) as well as to Britten and Robinson in this Office.
1
ledves let. 30/10.
(W. S. Carter)
A