SEORET
hioredged? already mare (fee 3 s.)
This
should not now appear.
Are not the points made in the last six lines of paragraph 5 and the last four lines of paragraph 8 of my letter of 9 March worth giving to the Governor as
ammunition?
(ii) The Bank of England have suggested not overdoing arguments about the size of this year's budget surplus (paragraph 13
of my earlier letter) but is it not worth at least mentioning this one to the Governor? No.
(iii) Paragraph 5: would you not wish to remind the Governor that
the intendin
he thought that arguments based on GNP might go down well with the Executive Council?
(iv) It seems that the wrong slant is given in paragraph 6. We do
not want to point to reasons why the British costs have risen. wan hq
We receive the impression from his earlier letters that the Governor in justifying the new contribution would lay emphasis on "local spending" and "direct economic gains" to Hong Kong. The Military Salary Award is a possible argument to be played up in this context.
Discuss
(v) We do not agree the inclusion of the last two sentences of paragraph 9 ie the wording which Gammon has suggested to you. We consider that we cannot go further than the wording of paragraph 8 of the draft Reply. If the Unofficials bring up the argument in paragraph 15 of Tel 134 we consider the Governor can do no more than simply take note.
4 If you would like a further meeting, say, this afternoon in order to co-ordinate these and any other comments, I think I could be available. I am copying this letter to Gammon and to Thomas of DOE whom I understand has the papers in Smith's absence.
SEORET
- 2
P.P. T J BRACK