CONFIDENTIAL COVERING SECRET
649
FROM:
PAUL FIFOOT
DATE:
28 JULY 1988
Mr
HKD
WH 306
HRB 011/3.
BASIC LAW: ARTICLE 169
telsent
Ярь
advanced
1.
I am concerned about the apparent rigidity of Hong Kong telno 2876. The purpose of the legal experts meeting is not to act as an advocate for a particular Hong Kong response but to explore the possibilities, within the achieveable areas of public response and what HMG can defend, of the various ways of giving effect to the Joint Declaration. The line on which I propose to open with regard to Article 169 is set out on pages 11-13 of the Memorandum attached to my letter to Shao Tianren.
2.
That line may involve putting forward possible elements for a revised Article 169 as in the attached paper. I would not open with the points to which telno 2876 refers.
3.
However, if we are not to appear as an advocate for the Hong Kong lawyers (and from the point of view of the Chinese there is no reason for them to hear us if that appears to be our role) it may well be necessary to go beyond that. In particular:-
a)
if one
it is likely to be a very sterile discussion were to refuse to consider the possibilities of the EC Treaty line attacked by Lu Ping, on which we would not go beyond discretion;
b)
can we really insist that the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong courts (JD 58 and 68) is absolute even as to matters which are not within the high degree of autonomy of the SAR on which there is a question whether they are within that autonomy or not?
4.
I would like to discuss these matters with you on Monday 1 August, before I go to Hong Kong. You may well wish to have a word with Mr McLaren before then.
Paul Fifoot
Legal Advisers K 199
CONFIDENTIAL COVERING SECRET