from the path of convergence with the Basic Law. They may both be inadequate - and there remains serious inconsistencies to resolve between the Basic Law and the Joint Declaration.
But whatever their imperfections these two documents provide the only framework for the future which Hong Kong has got. And it would only make it easier for the Chinese to break the terms of them after 1997, if the British set the precedent for doing so beforehand.
But the scope for action even within these limits is still surprisingly large.
Take the vexed issue of representation.
Given the success of the limited steps towards democracy so far, there is a clear hope that Mr Patten should now widen the scope of representation. And doing so would deepen the roots of democracy and make it more difficult to tear up after 1997.
I therefore hope that, on 7 October, Mr Patten will respond to this call.
There are those who suggest that he should move to a wholly representative system. However desirable in principle, this, as most people realise, is impractical, now.
But what is open to Mr Patten, without breaching either the Basic Law or the Joint Declaration, is to "democratise" the ten appointed places on Legco. Ideally he could simply say that they would be elected on an open franchise. But if this is unacceptably radical, then there are two other options available. Either elect the Election Committee that appoints them on an open franchise basis. Or comprise the District Boards solely of elected representatives and re-constitute them as the Election Committee, expressing their will through a proportional system of voting.
Either of these routes would, directly or indirectly, increase the representative element of Legco and substantially entrench democracy.
-
Which brings me to my second principle Chinese walls. Build them around your freedoms now, the better to protect them later.
Of course nothing is irreversible. But the more barriers of precedent, practise and law which are established to-day to protect Hong Kong's limited freedoms, the more difficult will be any attempt to tamper with them after 1997.
Let me give you an example. There is no reason why the Government should not accelerate the process of applying the provisions of the Basic Law before 1997, and in so doing establish a body of precedent which will fill in the grey areas before 1997.
There is no reason, for instance why the Court of Final Appeal should not be set up as soon as possible. The longer this Court is seen to operate effectively - the more it establishes the precedents for its work - the closer it is seen to follow the principles of common law, the more it will be trusted and able to resist being dragged onto the territory of Chinese law after 1997.