SECRET
THE GOVERNOR'S SUGGESTION THAT ANY ACTION SHOULD BE ACCOMPAN
BY A PUBLIC STATEMENT THAT IT WAS ONLY PERMISSIVE' AND
WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE CHINESE POSITION ON HONG YONG
MIGHT BE SUFFICIENT TO ALLAY SUSPICIONS.
4. IF AFTER EXPLANATION HAD BEEN GIVEN THE CHINESE OBJECTED TO COURSE A (WHICH I BELIEVE UNLIKELY), WE COULD THEN FALL BACK ON OPTION 'C'. I TAKE THE POINT
THAT A LEAK OF THE FACT THAT WE HAD MADE CONCESSIONS
WOULD BE DAMAGING TO CONFIDENCE. BUT DESPITE SONG'S RECENT REMARKS, I THINK THE CHINESE CAN BE TRUSTED TO KEEP SOMETHING SECRET IF WE SPECIFICALLY REQUEST THAT WE DO SO.
5. THE INCLUSION..OR OTHERWISE OF CLAUSE 3 MUST BE THE POST TRICKY POINT. WE UNDERSTOOD, HOWEVER, THAT WITHOUT SUCH A CLAUSE, WE WOULD HAVE FAILED TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM, AND THAT NEW LEASES MIGHT BE SUBJECT TO EMBARRASSING
LEGAL CHALLENGE (PARAS 3 AND 4 OF HONG KONG TELNO 517)
WHILST WE HAVE A RELATIVELY RECEPTIVE GOVERNMENT IN
PEKING I THINK THEREFORE THERE WOULD BE MERIT IN TRYING FOR
THE LOT, EXPLAINING CLAUSE 3 AS A NECESSARY PART OF THE
PACKAGE IF LEGAL ADJUSTMENT IS TO BE EFFECTIVE. IF THE
PRINCIPAL OBJECTION COMES HERE RATHER THAN ON THE FORM
OF PRESENTATION, WE HAVE 'B' AS A FALLBACK INSTEAD OF
*CS.
6. SO FAR AS THE TEXT IS CONCERNED, I AM UNCERTAIN TO
WHAT EXTENT THE ORDER IN COUNCIL OF 1897 CAN BE CONSIDERED
AS BEING POTENTIALLY IN FORCE AFTER 1997. AND WITHOUT
ACCESS TO LEGAL ADVICE I AM NOT CLEAR HOW THE CLAUSE CONTAINED IN HONG KONG TELNO 547 COULD HAVE THE EFFECT OF PERMITTING AN EXTENSION OF VALIDITY, IF IT IS REQUIRED. BUT UNLESS IT HAS THIS EFFECT IT ACHIEVES LITTLE. CRADOCR
FILES
NRGO
FED
PUSD
LEGAL ADVISERS
PSjMR BLAKER Psipus
SIR A DUFF
Me COR MAXXI
MR MURRAY
2
SECRET