MXT 400
400!!
RECO
i
INDEX
12 JUL 1993
RY
tion Token
6 July 1993
By Fax
J M Macgregor Esq
ECD (E)
FCO
L
RESTRICTED
United Kingdom
Permanent Representation
To the European Communities
Rond-Point Robert Schuman 6
1040 Brussels
Telephone: (02) 287 82 11
Telex: 24312
Facsimile: (02) 287 83 98
DID: (02)287-8248
R&R 400|1
AZZ 12/7
HILD 406/5
new editing not
Love immunitio
21 JUL 1993
GAD.
Pi wk
Dear John,
EC DELEGATION OFFICE IN HONG KONG
Jm. 177
1 We discussed this in your office on 5 July. I told you of my impression that the negotiation between the Commission and the Hong Kong authorities was not moving forward, and risked running into the sand. We thought that it might soon be appropriate to consult Ministers.
My letter of 7 April 2. You will recall the recent history. reported the progress made during the Governor's visit to Brussels on 1/2 April. The Governor followed this up with his letter of 29 April to Delors. Since then I have done my best to stay in touch with the Commission and the HKETO, and to urge both But progress has been to give the issue a higher priority. hampered by the transfer of responsibility for the subject within the Commission to DGIA and by absences of senior officers in the HKETO (Patrick Williamson, the head of the office, is now away until mid-August).
3. I now enclose a copy of Delors' reply to the Governor's letter of 29 April. Sir L Brittan was due to deliver this to Mr Patten at their meeting in Hong Kong on 4 July (though the HKETO was unable to confirm to me today that this had happened). I am afraid that the terms of Delors' reply are not encouraging. It shows little recognition of the constraints under which the the careful Hong Kong authorities
operating, despite explanations that the Hong Kong side have given over the last year. In particular the letter continues to demand the full range of privileges and immunities comparable to those enjoyed by Commission delegations in capitals elsewhere in the world, without taking account of the differences arising from the particular status of Hong Kong.
are
4. However, I do not think that the letter closes the door on a pragmatic solution. Although it refers to the issues of the Commission's
international
status and
to
the
post-1997
RESTRICTED
75