A link between textile restraint negotiations and the GSP?
1. In a telegram dated 11th October, Mr Jordan said that because of the effect
of the super-competitive proposals (which would reduce whatever advantages
were secured on textiles and footwear, and could have repercussions on Hong
Kong's treatment under the and other schemes) he felt it would be essential
for Hong Kong to insist on a minimum of quantitative restriction on her
largest export industry - textiles. He went on
"It seems to me time that we played our only card.
The EEC wants a
Multifibre Textile Arrangement Article 4 agreement with us, and others.
If the 1975 GSP were to discriminate against us even to the extent
envisaged in the Commission's original proposals, we should be obliged
to stand on our rights under the MTA and to insist that the EEC limit
its request to MTA Article 3 ie we would consider restraint only on a
product by product, member state by member state basis (er Community ·
basis if there was a Community-wide case). We feel we could reasonably
expect your support in doing this. Our proposed action will become
even more necessary if Fran's current ideas are accepted, I think But
the Dodge, with your agreement, should make this clear in Brussels.
GSP and textiles cannot be kept in separate compartments when GSP includes
discrimination against our textiles."
##
2. The distinction between Articles 3 and 4 of the Multifibre Textiles
Arrangement is outlined in paras 4-7 below.
3. Along with our colleagues in the FCO and the Department of Industry, we
have looked carefly at Mr Jordan's proposal to make it clear to the Community
that Hong Kong would stand on its MFA rights, failing a satisfactory outcome
on the CSP. We are agreed that we should strongly advise Hong Hong in her
own interest not to take this line. In dissuading him, the following agreements
could be used:
1
!
1