KESTRICTED
AS REGARDS OTHER BILATERAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE UK AND THIRD COUNTRIES, WHICH DO NOT CONTAIN SELF-LIMITATION PROVISIONS ON EXPORTS, THE UK SHOULD REFLECT ON WHETHER IT REALLY REQUIRES DEROG-
ATION TO AVOID SERIOUS PREJUDICE OR THE THREAT OF SERIOUS PREJUDICE TO THE BRITISH TEXTILE INDUSTRY (WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 18 OF REGULATION 1825/70).
(E) THE COMMISSION WOULD CONSIDER FURTHER THE POSSIBILITIES OPEN TO THE UK UNDER REGULATION 1025/78.
3. AFTER SOME PRELIMINARY SNIPING FROM KEVERS (FRANCE), HOPE (UK) MADE A STATEMENT ON THE LINES OF PALLISER'S LETTER OF 23 MARCH TO ERNST IN THE COMMISSION (NOT COPIED TO ALL).
4. KEVERS, SUPPORTED BY FRIEDRICKS (GERMANY) WANTED TO KNOW THE
LEGAL BASIS FOR THE BRITISH REQUESTS FOR A DEROGATION. WAS IT
ARTICLE XIX OF THE GATT, OR ARTICLE 3 OF THE LONG TERM AGREEMENT, OR SIMPLY ON THE BASIS THAT THE BRITISH TEXTILE INDUSTRY WAS IN
DIFFICULTIES, OR THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE IN THE FUTURE? IF IT WAS
THE LATTER CASE, THE COMMISSION WAS CREATING ITS OWN JURISPRUDENCE
BY ACKNOWLEDGING THIS AS A LEGAL BASIS FOR ACTION. IN THE DEBATE
KEVERS SHOWED THE GREATEST RELUCTANCE TO ACCEPT THE CONCLUSIONS IN 2(B) AND 2(C) ABOVE.
5. FRIEDRICHS EMPHASISED GERMANY'S FIRM OPPOSITION TO NEW QUOTA
RESTRICTIONS AGAINST DEVELOPING COUNTRIES' EXPORTS. HE ALSO
EXPRESSED DISAPPOINTMENT AT THE LACK OF STATISTICAL EVIDENCE FROM
THE UK IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE, BUT IN WHAT HE TERMED A SPIRIT OF
COMPROMISE HE SAID THAT GERMANY WOULD BE PREPARED TO ACCEPT A QUOTA RESTRICTION BY THE UK AGAINST IMPORTS FROM INDIA, PAKISTAN AND HONG-KONG ONLY. THE QUOTA WOULD BE EACH COUNTRY'S BEST EXPORT
FIGURE DURING THE PAST FOUR YEARS, PLUS 10 PER CENT.
6. HOPE POINTED OUT THAT THE UK WAS NOT ASKING FOR NEW RESTRICTIONS
IN REGARD TO THESE COUNTRIES, BUT TO MAINTAIN THE STATUS QUO, HE SAID IT WOULD PE INEQUITABLE TO DISCRIMINATE AS BETWEEN ONE THIRD-
COUNTRY SUPPLIER AND ANOTHER. IN ANY CASE IT WAS THE OVERALL TOTAL
OF IMPORTS WHICH WAS IMPORTANT, AND WHICH COULD DAMAGE THE UK TEXT-
ILE INDUSTRY.
-2- RESTRICTED
17.