7
(MWE `6/393/1)
O/F.
European Integration Department,
Foreign and Commonwealth Office,
London, S.W.1.
27 February," 1969
•5 m (ii)
Goldsmith wrote to you from Geneva on 24 January enclosing) a note of a meeting which he had there with Tran of the European Commission.
2. There is one point in this record on which we do not feel altogether happy. The last two sentences of paragraph 5 of the record refer to the argument that the exclusion of Hong Kong from a preferences scheme would add one more difficulty to our entry into the E.E.C.
3. As the record says, this is an argument which cannot be used with the French. I suggest that in fact it would be unwise to use it with the Italians or with the Belgians. It is the sort of argument which, at the end of the day, might have some impact on the Italians or Belgians at a political level (though even this would have to be judged at the time). But it is not likely to carry much weight with the Italians and Belgians at a technical level. And those interests in Italy and Belgium which are opposing' the inclusion of Hong Kong in a preferences scheme will be able (and will certainly be ready) to use the E.E.C. argument with the French in order to stiffen the latter's opposition to the inclusion' of Hong Kong.
4.
In his letter of 13 February, David Hannay points out that. we should now do nothing to draw attention to the fact that Hong Kong has not been specifically excluded from the list of beneficiaries.
.H. Kemmis Esq.,
Board of Trade,
1 Victoria Street,
S.W.1.
(J.A. Robinson)
RECEIVED IN:
c.c.
+
Mr. D.J. Jones, Geneva
ARCHIVES No.31
Mr. D.H.A. Hannay, Brussels Mr. B. Fall, Geneva
3M 4359 HKK B
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.