CONFIDENTIAL
Reference
ODE 18-77
Chinese Law Unit in HKG, to see if he has anything to add.
11. Whatever the reasons for the Chinese view that the BL cannot be amended before 1997, I would suggest that it would probably be in Hong Kong's overall interests for this view to be adhered to. Any suggestion that the BL could be changed at will would be unsettling, as there are doubtless a number of provisions which could be made even less palatable than they are at present.
12. It would also be to Hong Kong's advantage for the Chinese to take the view that, after 30 June 1997, amendments can only be made via the BL 159 procedures. It is interesting to see that this view is expressed in the extract from the Chinese book translated by Mr Wye (which can probably be regarded as having "semi-official" status).
13. As far as changes to the composition of the first Legco are concerned, I agree with the view of Michael Davis (in the article attached to Mr Cox's minute of 1 June) that since this is dealt with wholly outside the BL in a "decision" of the NPC, the decision could be changed by another NPC decision, without the need to amend the BL at all. I think, for the reasons in para 11 above, we would be on much safer ground if we confined our request for amendments to this decision. Of course, the Chinese policy reasons for not wishing to amend the Basic Law may well apply equally strongly to the decisions which accompanied it. Certainly, if unilateral action in 1995 is contemplated, I agree with your view that it would be marginally less confrontational to go for a Legco set up on the lines laid down in BL Annex II for the second term. I seem to recall that we are committed to seeking amendments to those provisions of the BL which we consider to be in breach of the JD, eg Articles 107 and 108. Careful thought will also need to be given as to how we go about this. One way of doing this would be to seek a political commitment to set in motion the BL 159 procedures after entry into force though of course the Chinese have already stated publicly their unwillingness to engage in any such discussion with us.
14. I have not seen an account of the actual words used by Mr Goodlad in his meeting with political figures in Hong Kong. It would be helpful to know exactly what was said, and what sort of further comment, if any, you would envisage being made by HMG on this subject.
Jili Banit
Jill Barrett
Assistant Legal Adviser JB6AAQ
CONFIDENTIAL