in this way; we do not want to give the Community an opportunity
to comment on our discarded proposals as well as our preferred,
though they may of course raise some of them thers elver.
4. We know from your very helpful letter of 27 July that you
are doubtful whether GATT would wear such an arrangement, for
which there are no precedents. If it is the question of
precedents which is likely to worry the Secretariat, we suggest
you should emphasise the unique position of Hong Kong, as a
dependent colonial territory which is never likely to emerge as
a fully independent nation, which vet has major international
trading interests in its own right. It would also be as well
to play down as far as possible the precedent-creating aspects
of the proposal, and to present it as a practical solution to a
practical problem. I do not know whether any formal decision
of the Contracting Parties would be called for, but I do not see
why it should. Perhaps this question could be put to the
Secretariat in terms expecting the answer "No".
5. Hong Kong's own order of preference among the other three
alternatives is for (ii) as second best, and then 8(iii) -
if the political difficulties could be overcome, which is
unlikely. But we do not suggest that you should at this stage
sound the Secretariat on the other possibilities. If they seem
willing to accept our proposal, the next step will be to tackle
the EEC on the lines indicated in para 3 above; if the
Secretariat raise serious difficulties, then we shall have to
think again.
2