.
b) does paragraph 7 refer only to formal Conventions (eg Schengen or the EFC); or, since, in the English version of the OJ, the word "conventions" does not have a capital letter, does it also cover informal arrangements, like the current CVL? If the former, then Schengen will presumably provide its signatories with legal cover for their CVL, if it is "in force" by then. However, Madrid tels nos 308 and 311 show that in early July some States had still not ratified it; and that the start date of 1 December would need to be confirmed by a Ministerial meeting in October and would in any case only apply to some members. But what about us, whose arrangements do not flow from any Conventions between member-states, but from domestic legislation? If informal arrangements are included, then our visa requirements on the current EC CVL countries will be covered, but what about those on the half-dozen which are not on it?
c) what happens on the day when Maastricht comes into effect? Does 100c become operative immediately? EC Immigration Ministers have told officials to ensure that there is no juridical vacuum. Discussions in the Ad Hoc Group on Immigration on how to do so have been inconclusive so far. The Commission representative (Mr Fortescue) has suggested that at first a simple Directive to confirm the status quo would be appropriate. But even if the Commission could table a proposal at 0001 on Day 1, consultations with the EP would take time. What would happen until the Council had determined? Would Article 5 enable member-states to continue with present practice? If not, and it is a case of the list, the whole list and nothing but the list ((a) above), then we might be faced with some awkward choices. If Schengen were in force, so that parties to it did not depend on an EC CVL to justify their visa regimes (b) above), then we could tell partners that we were not prepared to agree to a CVL which included countries on whom we did not currently impose visas, (including Hong Kong). But leaving aside the impact on our "Communautaire" image generally, and our wish to put some life into the Third Pillar, to do so would be unlikely to persuade the Schengenites to drop Hong Kong from their List, or, when QMV comes into force later, to accede to our arguments, not least on resource grounds, for having/retaining a shorter rather than a longer CVL. If Schengen were not in force, and there was therefore a potential legal vacuum for its parties too until an EC CVL came into existence, we would have to weigh up whether an attempt to "blackmail" the others into agreeing to a short CVL as the price of avoiding having no List at all, was worth the retaliation we might suffer in other areas of Community business, possibly of much greater importance. Either way, if we therefore had to do some horse-trading, eg agree to the Caribbean and/or Southern Africa going on, in exchange for Hong Kong staying off, then the resource consideration could become quite urgent, since it will affect MVD's TMR bid for 1994/95, which we shall have to submit quite soon.. On the other hand, to require Old Commonwealth and, especially before 1 July 1997, I add have their HK (and other) BDTCs to have visas, would be very difficult
"Inconceivable",
domestically.