PAGE TWO
3. BUT I HAVE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS MADE THE POINT TO HADDON-
CAVE AND JONES THAT IF WE ARE TO BE ASKED TO REVISE OUR OFFER
AND IN PARTICULAR E.C.G.D. ELEMENTS OF IT, THEN WE MUST (A) KNOW IN MORE DETAIL WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO MATCH AND (B) HAVE TIME TO DISCUSS WITHIN WHITEHALL, PERSUADE TREASURY AND MAKE
SUBMISSION TO MINISTERS.
4. I HAVE ALSO MADE CLEAR TO THEM THAT SENIOR OFFICIALS
CONCERNED NEED TO PLAN THEIR CONFERENCE COMMITMENTS WELL
AHEAD. HADDON-CAVE AND JONES KNOW THAT ON BASIS OF THEIR
ESTIMATE OF TIMETABLE THAT I HAD ASSUMED AND ADVISED THAT
OFFICIALS WERE UNLIKELY TO BE REQUIRED IN MARCH.
5. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CHOICE BUT TO AGREE TO DISCUSSIONS
IN MARCH AND IN HONG KONG. BUT IN VIEW OF ABOVE, AND
UNDERTAK INGS GIVEN IN LONDON, IT WOULD NOT BE UNREASONABLE FOR US TO (A) ASK FOR MORE INFORMATION ON THE COMPETITION SO
THAT POSSIBLE CONCESSIONS COULD BE THOROUGHLY DISCUSSED BEFORE TALKS IN HONG KONG SEMICOLON (B) PROPOSE THAT WE SHOULD GO
LAST RATHER THAN FIRST THIS TIME, 1.E. STARTING SAY
MONDAY 12 MARCH.
6. THIS COULD ALL BE PRESENTED IN THE SENSE OF OUR TRYING TO
ENSURE THAT WE MAKE DISCUSSION AS MEANINGFUL AND CRISP AS
POSSIBLE. BUT IT WOULD ALSO MEAN THAT THE TEAM COMING HERE
WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AUTHORITY TO NEGOTIATE WITH MINIMUM
REFERENCE BACK.
/POINTS