that the Hle
it
merely
paper misrepresents the parifa, omits to explain it fully, I think
therefore that we could defend this omission
since the subject-matter is quite technical
especially
J
3. On the question raised in
para 4 g telegram, I do not quite follow then
redsoning
The
the
Hong Kong (Legistative Power) Order 1989 empower the the legislatore to
"
repeas
a amend
any
enactment so far as it is
past of the law of Tike "..." to the extent
required in order to
。 give
effect to an
1986
international agreement which applies to Hla, and for connected purposes", I do not see how the repeal of either the 1983 a
effect Order could be required in order to give to an international greement. Is their view that the repeal of the 1972 Older is required
effect to an internati and agreement (a rather strained view given that the 1972 Order already implements it) and that the repealso the other two are
in order to
give ssibly
are for "connected
purposes" ? Grateful of you could ade for clarification of their reasoning This need not
ther handing over of the casultation
hold
пр
paper.
Will Bath 23/7/93