be a voluntary acceptance of the objectionable Article 2
restraints without any more than a vague promise that the
Commission would try to obtain better treatment in the future.
Ernst repeated that he could not go further than express his
personal views and could not, until he got his mandate, commit
the Community.
19. At this stage the specific discussion on cotton textile
arrangements ended, with an understanding that the substantive
consultations envisaged by the CTC would be held in March,
probably in Brussels, after the Commission had been given its
mandate by the Council. We made it very clear that in
agreeing to resume discussions, this time on a formal basis,
we were not in any way accepting that Hong Kong would agree to
negotiate an Article 4 arrangement on the sort of basis Ernst
had outlined. That would be a matter for consideration (and
almost certainly further preliminary consultation) in the light
of the EEC offers made in March and the form of the extension
of the Cotton Textiles Arrangement.
Common Commercial Policy and Other Matters
20. Ernst then turned to Hong Kong/EEC trade relations in
general. He said there were three elements in the situation:
(a) cotton textiles;
(b) wool and mmf textiles;
(c) French non-textile restrictions.
21. The first had already been discussed and would need to be
followed up in the way we had agreed.
Non-cotton textiles
the EEC would prefer to leave in abeyance until the results of
the U.S. démarche could be seen. Ernst stressed that the
Community had clearly stated its opposition to the American
proposals; they hoped that the Asian countries which had been
approached bilaterally would maintain their opposition.
However,
if in the event the U.S. pressures were kept up and it appeared
/that they
CONFIDENTIAL