folio66
K1 R.J
You, John e
HKD 345/3
RECEIVED IN REGISTRY
17 AUG 1993
DESK OFFICE
shi discuss telare John ques on leave. We may
Michael Jay Esq.
PA
REGISTRY
tion Taksi
Eufer pterose
with pic.
1918 лют
need to up our hobbying level, I Hink 11. Ministerial
Foreign and Commonwealth Office Downing Street East
SW1
Dear Michael,
EC VISA POLICY AND HONG KONG
ஈகைன்னு
HOME OFFICE
LUNAR HOUSE
to
copy
WELLESLEY ROAD
CROYDON CR9 2BY
Mrs BJ
7
should we not have thr Jay reply
this? ride. It seems to
we are is four too defeatists. If he 16 August 1993 reason he should
фоль М. Міший 1918 At first reciding, not a very positive contributite
accupa or
nor pull overmirlari
way.en
to the debate
"/y But Me Rawsthorne does
we should do all we can
agree
that
to prevent
in
Висо
√79/8
the imposition of visa regimes Portes ( he says nothing appout ukrisas post 1996...) He does not like Miss Bucks' argument to excluding HK
from 100C. ELDU), MVD HKD will
review minuting once Schengen lobbying foho 68 exercis
I have just seen Mr McLachlan's minute to you of 6 August about the implications of EC visa policy for Hong Kong. Some of the analysis did not seem to me quite right, and it may be helpful to set out the position as I see it.
If a country is on the Schengen common visa list I see no prospect of our persuading them to remove it. We may have a locus in seeking to persuade them not to add Hong Kong to the list, but we need to be careful what arguments we use.
As far as the EC common visa list is concerned, it would be a massive mistake to argue that Hong Kong BDTCs and BN (0)s are in some sense Community nationals. I have not seen Shelagh -Brooks' advice, but I do not see how one could have a category of community national without a right of entry to the Community, and that would totally overturn the very firm policy of subjecting BDTCs and BN(O)s to UK immigration control.
As you know, under Article 100c of the Maastricht Treaty the Commission will be responsible for the common visa list once the Treaty is in force. I doubt whether arguments about the structure of the K4 Committee are very relevant. There is an esoteric, but important, point to be resolved about whether there should be both a negative and a positive list, but I would expect the Commission to table a proposal, no doubt based closely on the Schengen list, as soon as Maastricht comes into effect.
We fully accept the strong political reasons for not imposing a visa requirement on BDTCS and BN(O)s and if the Commission's proposal included them we would no doubt block agreement to the list, but we may be outvoted when the matter becomes subject to QMV on 1 January 1996.
Our aim must therefore be to persuade other Member States, and the Commission, not to include BDTCs and BN(0)s on the list, whether or not they have national visa regimes for them.
I am
complete.
ПВТ
10/2