of 'stabilisation', the value to exporters of an agreement which the
EEC would scrupulously respect, etc. He made a particular point of
the Governor's reference to discrimination against Hong Kong and invited
elaboration.
The Governor replied that there was clear evidence of a political
decision to favour some countries at the expense of others. Mr. Gaspari
said there was no discrimination against Hong Kong as such, but that the
five 'dominant' suppliers (including India for one product) would be
treated alike, and Hong Kong happened to be a dominant supplier.
The Governor referred to Hong Kong's excellent track record in
reaching and honouring mutually acceptable agreements by adopting
a flexible approach in bilateral negotiations. And he recalled that
it had been the Hong Kong delegation to the GATT textile committee
who had first introduced the concept of 'reasonable departures' from
particular provisions of the MFA. Mr. Dorward added by way of illustration
that the growth rates for most sensitive products in the current
HK/EEC agreement were well below 6 per cent. It was not reduced growth
rates, nor even the general concept of stabilisation of EEC imports
at 1976 levels of trade which H.K. found particularly objectionable,
rather it was the suggestion that base limits for Hong Kong might be set
well below the actual performance achieved in 1976 in certain categories.
Mr. Elliot said he had been instructed to indicate that U.K.
would be concerned at any question of discrimination against H.K. The U.K.
would expect to see fair treatment for H.K. in the formulation of the
mandate.
Mr. Haferkamp commented that the Commission's objective was agreements resulting in a regime which would avoid the risk of increased protectionism resulting from unilateral action by member states (as had occured earlier in 1977 when the French imposed additional import controls
on textiles) and which would thereby give exporters security in future
trading opportunities. The Governor responded that he saw danger in
the EEC formulating and attempting to force on some of its trading partners a regime so restrictive and discriminatory that it might induce
third countries to follow suit as a result of domestic political pressures, and thereby produce the very proliferation of protectionism
which the EEC was trying to avoid.
2 -