1. TALKS
CHINESE CLAIM THAT BY INTRODUCING LEGISLATION WE HAVE BROKEN OFF THE TALKS
Not the case. We have made plain that we want to continue discussion of the remaining, more difficult, issues. We have proposed a further round of talks for that purpose.
Legislation we are introducing is uncontroversial and demonstrably urgent. It has not proved possible to reach agreement in time on these points. But that is no reason to abandon cooperation in all the many areas where we and China have an interest in working together over Hong Kong.
CHINESE ALLEGATIONS THAT WE ARE CREATING TURMOIL IN HONG KONG?
Britain and
Do not recognise the Hong Kong conjured up in these statements. Hong Kong is prosperous, calm and self-confident. Business confidence is strong. China have every interest in keeping things that way through cooperation.
WHY WAS LEGCO VOTING METHOD THE MAKE-OR-BREAK ISSUE?
We made it clear to the Chinese side early on, that an interim agreement would only be of practical use to us if it included all the urgent LegCo issues as well, including the LegCo voting method. That would gain a little more time to continue discussing the more complicated issues.
The single-seat, single-vote system for LegCo is widely favoured in Hong Kong: in LegCo itself and in the community. If we had left it out of an interim package, the package would probably have been amended by LegCo.
Not the only issue: we had also not reached a satisfactory understanding on the abolition of appointed membership.
WHAT WAS THE PROBLEM OVER APPOINTED SEATS?
We and the Chinese side agree that appointed seats should disappear from the Legislative Council as from the 1995 elections. Only logical that they should also go from the subsidiary bodies.
We thought we had reached an understanding in the talks allowing us to abolish appointed seats in the 1994-95 elections, and leaving it to the future Special Administrative Region to decide on its own whether to reinstate any.
supp.3.12.8B.JRB
3