CONSIDERABLY MORE IN 1973.
WE FEEL THAT THIS UNINTENDED
DIVERSION CAN BE AIMOST DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTED TO THE EFFECT
OF THE EEC GRANTING PREFERENCES TO SOUTH KOREA FOR SHIRTS
AND NOT TO HONG KONG.
I CAN QUOTE YOU SIMILAR RATHER LESS
DRAMATIC FIGURES FOR SEVERAL OTHER ITEMS IN THE TEXTILES
FIELD. IN KNITTED OUTERGARMENTS FOR EXAMPLE, HONG KONG
EXPORTS TO THE MARKET DECREASED MARGINALLY DURING THE TWO
YEARS WHILE THOSE FROM SOUTH KOREA MORE THAN DOUBLED, ONCE
AGAIN TAKING THE LATTER TO AN UNPRECEDEN TED POSITION OF
PRINCIPAL SUPPLIER. IN THAT PARTICULAR MARKET THE OVERALL
TEXTILES TRADE OF SOUTH KOREA INCREASED BETWEEN THE TWO
YEARS IN QUESTION BY 125% COMPARED WITH A SIMPLE 20%
INCREASE FROM HONG KONG.
YOU CAN APPRECIATE OUR DISTRESS.
IT IS CLEARLY WE WHO ARE DOING SOME OF THE BURDEN-SHARING OF
THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EEC. I AM SURE THIS WAS NOT YOUR
IN TENTION AND THAT YOU DO NOT THINK SOUTH KOREA OR YUGOSLAVIA
ETC. SHOULD BENEFIT AT THE EXPENSE. OF HONG KONG.. WE SHOULD
ALL HAVE EQUALITY OF OPPORTUNITY. AFTER ALL MOST OF THIS
TEXTILES TRADE IS UNDER QUANTITATIVE RESTRICTIONS ANYWAY.
2. THIS IS, THEREFORE, THE BACKGROUND AGAINST WHICH
THE GOVERNMENT OF HONG KONG, FIRMLY SUPPORTED BY HER MAJESTY'S
GOVERNMENT, IS PLEADING THAT THE DISCRIMINATION AGAINST HONG
KONG BE NOW REMOVED.
/AS WE UNDERSTAND
14.