}
CONFIDENTIAL
-2-
3. TO WHICH THEY SUGGEST MY REPLY MIGHT BE:
+ HAVE THE HONOUR TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF YOUR LETTER OF TODAY'S DATE READING AS FOLLOWS:
+VITH REFERENCE........CONTAINED THEREIN.+
I HAVE THE HONOUR TO CONFIRM THE UNDERSTANDING SET OUT IN YOUR ABOVE LETTER.+
4. ALTHOUGH THE E E C POSITION, AND THUS PERHAPS THE ULTIMATE FATE OF THE 1973 ARRANGEMENTS, REMAINS IN DOUBT, I CAN SEE NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD DENY THE BENELUX THE NORMAL COURTESY OF THIS SUCCESTED PROVISIONAL APPLICATION AND I RECOMMEND YOUR EARLY APPROVAL.
5. UNCONNECTED WITH THE ABOVE, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BENELUX ARE CONSIDERING WHETHER THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE 1973 ARRANGEMENTS SHOULD BE FORMALLY SIGNED IN THE HAGUE OR IN HONG KONG. THERE IS APPARENTLY SOME FEELING THAT THE FORMER WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE SINCE THAT IS WHERE THE NEGOTIATIONS TOOK PLACE. I INDICATED THAT AS THE CRICINAL AGREEMENT HAD BEEN SIGNED IN HONG KONG, WE HAD RATHER ANTICIPATED THAT THE AMENDMENT WOULD BE SIMILARLY FORMALISED BUT
THAT YOU PROBABLY HAD MO STRONG VIEWS ON THE MATTER.
FCO PASS PRIORITY HONG KONG
[REPEATED AS REQUESTED]
SIR J. BEITH
INTERNATIONAL TRADE DISTRIBUTION
COMMODITIES D,
H.K.D.
W.E.D.
CONFIDENTIAL