could be difficult in Parliamentary terms. If it proved impossible to reverse he hoped the realities of the situation
could be explained to Hong Kong. Sir Philip Haddon-Cave
emphasised that if Gibraltarians were seen to be getting better treatment than their CBDT counterparts in other dependent territories people in Hong Kong and particularly the Unofficial Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils
would revive their requests for a clearer statement of their
British status.
5. Meanwhile the Whips remain of the opinion that the Gibraltar amendment cannot be reversed in the Lords and they
are doubtful of success in the Commons.
6.
There are three possible courses of action:
a. To accept a Lords amendment in favour of Gibraltar
without significant resistance. This is impracticable in view of the assurances already given privately and in Parliament that all dependent territories will be treated equally. If would also open wide the way to
the Falkland Islands amendment.
b.
C.
To resist the Gibraltar amendment in the Lords with the
prospect of defeat there, but not to resist it in the
Commons. This might have the effect of delaying the Hong Kong reaction, but it would destroy the consistency with which the Government have argued that CBDT is a uniform citizenship.
To resist the Gibraltar amendment in both Houses would
have the advantage of consistency. Any discrimination between Gibraltar and Hong Kong, or Gibraltar and the Falkland Islands, will be easiest to defend if it
were seen to have been decided by Parliament in the division lobbies despite the opposition of the
Government.
In all of these three cases it will be equally important to stave off the Falkland Islands amendment.
17. The