CODE 18-77
Mr Hum, HKD
Павели
HONG KONG AGREEMENT: MOTION:
1.
CONFIDENTIAL
Reference..
124
inmate to Sir P. Gaank/ps
Covering draw letter / fre sys
YOUR MINUTE OF 5 OCTOBER
XO LPS
18/10.
The constitutional position is that Ministers acting solely in pursuance of the royal prerogative could, if they wished, authorise the signature of the draft Joint Declaration. There is no constitutional need for them to consult Parliament first. The only constitutional requirement is to secure the enactment of the necessary implementing legislation before ratification. Any decision to invite a debate before signature will therefore be based on grounds of policy, and so too will tactical decisions on the handling of Parliament for the purposes of any such debate, and on where, when and how to announce a decision to sign the draft Joint Declaration.
2.
On a small technical point, it would be more usual to refer to the Joint Declaration as a draft until such a time as it is signed, but I would see no legal objection to its being referred to as the "draft agreement" in any of the three texts set out in your paragraph 3.
7. Bemons
Витого
F Burrows
Legal Counsellor
8 October 1984
Copy to:
Mr Bacon, Parliamentary Unit
CONFIDENTIAL
HKK 040/31 ник
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
16 OCT 1984
DESK OFFICER
INDEX
PA
↑
REL CIRY
Action Taken
OD