CONFIDENTIAL
himself nor of officials in 1971 that it should be.
If this is accepted, the next question is, for how
long did Mr Rippon's statement commit us? It was his
stated intention that we should reopen the question
during the negotiations on adaptation and in later
annual reviews.
And the final question is, what harm
would be done if it were to be reopened?
10. From Hong Kong's point of view, especially for
both constitutional but also for economic reasons the
essential element is to secure elimination of
discrimination against her in favour of her main
competitors. Hong Kong officials claim Hong Kong has
no preference between inclusion in the Community's
GSP on the same terms as these competitors or
exclusion from it if they are excluded too. OPTION 1
11.
Subject to this, her first request is that we
should seek to secure the removal of the special
Hong Kong HONG
in respect of Hong Kong
exclusion of Hong Kong textiles and footwear, from the
A
enlarged Community's scheme when it comes into
operation on 1 January 1974.
12. For Hong Kong this would be ideal. It would
this
remove discrimination and resolve both the consti-
tutional and economic difficulties at one go. It is
supported by the Hong Kong side of the Office who
consider that even if it is rejected later by the
EEC the attempt in itself would help our relations
with Hong Kong and we should have established a
position which could be important later. The
European side, while agreeing that it is possible
for us to reopen the issue as a matter of Community
law (see paragraph 7 above) consider however that
/there
- 6 -
CONFIDENTIAL
NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN