CONFIDENTIAL
(i) by a clause in the Act which would
itself terminate UK
sovereignty over the ceded territories as from 1 July 1997:
(ii) by an enabling clause giving power to make an Order in Council bringing into effect the termination of sovereignty from 1 July
1997.
not
The choice between options (i) and (ii) is essentially a matter of parliamentary tactics. Option (ii) would leave a trigger mechanism in our hands in the form of the Order in Council to bring into effect the termination of sovereignty which would not be made until
nearer to 1997. This would however be of little practical use as a
deterrent to the Chinese: our rights on the leased territories, disappear in 1997 anyway, and the remaining territory is not viable on its own. But option (ii) would have some presentational
advantages, since the transfer of sovereignty is SO far in the
future. But there is one important consideration: the Law Officers
have advised that, in order to make it possible to ratify the agreement, an Order in Council, if option (ii) is followed, must
be subject to either affirmative or negative Parliamentary
procedure. There could easily be pressure from Parliament to make
so subject, particularly as members might take the view that
Parliament should see the Basic Law before taking a final decision.
Although there are precedents (particularly in the case of Rhodesia)
subordinate legislation on a transfer of sovereignty not to be
subject to further parliamentary consideration, these might not be
sufficient to persuade Parliament to allow the same power in this
case. Finally, the Chinese might look askance at our insisting on
leaving legislation until a later date. These considerations tend
to militate in favour of option (i). The only serious drawback of
this option is that the Government might be criticised for
legislating definitively so far in advance. On the other hand the
Government could argue plausibly that since the date is now clearly
defined, there is no reason not to legislate. On the whole option
(i) seems the better option.
it
+
(b) Nationality, as argued above, could be dealt with by an enabling
clause allowing later subordinate legislation. Provisions on nationality are usually set out in detail in Independence Acts. But
/in
CONFIDENTIAL