CONFIDENTIAL
3.
FOUR OUTSTANDING ISSUES DISCUSSED WITH FOLLOWING RESULTS: IMPLEMENTATION DATE: NO STRONG OPPOSITION TO GIVING US REQUIRED FLEXIBILITY, THOUGH SOME PREFERENCES FOR A TARGET DATE. AGREED WORKING GROUP SHOULD DRAFT FORMULA ON LINES I SUGGESTED. I MADE CLEAR THAT FORMULA WOULD ALLOW COUNTRIES TO GO AHEAD EARLIER IF READY: BUT ARGUED AGAINST ANY FORMULA WITH A TARGET DATE AND AN ESCAPE CLAUSE.
DATA SURPLUS TO ICAO FORMAT: ONLY FRANCE OPPOSED TO REVERTING TO DECEMBER COMPROMISE WHEREBY ADDITIONAL DATA OPTIONAL. SHE SAID MATTER NOT AGREED IN DECEMBER AND SECURITY REASONS FOR REQUIRING EXTRA DATA. BUT SHE DID NOT GIVE IMPRESSION OF IN- FLEXIBILITY,
LANGUAGES NUMBERS AND INDEX. RUGGIERO (ITALY) STRESSED POLITICAL AND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE OF THIS FOR COUNTRIES WHOSE NATIONAL LANGUAGE NOT ENGLISH OR FRENCH. INDEX WAS ITSELF A COMPROMISE. (COMMISSION REPRESENTATIVE MADE SAME POINT STRONGLY TO US IN PRIVATE).
ORDER ON COVER. NO CHANGE IN KNOWN POSITIONS. I SAID ORDER WAS TECHNICAL QUESTION AND SHOULD NOT BE GIVEN SYMBOLIC IMPORT- ANCE.
4. RİBERHOLDT (DENMARK) HALF JOKINGLY SUGGESTED COMPROMISE WHEREBY, IF OTHERS GAVE US OUR WAY ON FIRST TWO OF ABOVE POINTS WE WOULD GIVE IN ON THIRD AND FOURTH AND THE PRESIDENCY SEEMED TO BE POINTING THE WORKING GROUP TOWARDS SUCH A PRESENTATION. I SAID WE WERE NOT THINKING OF THE ISSUES IN TERMS OF A DEAL. NEED WAS TO WORK OUT SOLUTION ON ALL POINTS WHICH WAS ACCEPTABLE TO ALL MEMBER STATES.
5. BACK TO COREPER NEXT WEEK ON BASIS OF WORKING GROUP CONSIDER- ATION OF FIRST TWO QUESTION.
BUTLER
FRAME GENERAL ECD (I)
2
CONFIDENTIAL