TNAG-0139-FCO40-175-Effect-of-EEC-common-commercial-policy-on-Hong-Kong-exports-1969 — Page 255

C. & 1. 1505

2700463

60x100-4/58-164534

1/2/38100

To:

Director of Commerce and Industry, Hong Kong.

From:

Counsellor for Hong Kong Commercial Affairs, Brussels.

Memorandum No. 119

CONFIDENTIA L

File No. 2/18/86

Date

29th April 1969

REC: COMMON COMMERCIAL POLICY

I had a meeting on 23rd April with Ernst, at which he raised this subject. lla said that he wanted Hong Kong to know that "Everything had to be fixed up" by the end of this year, He added that Hong Kong would no doubt be aware that the Commis sion were now examining those sectors of tim Community's import trade which were not completly liberalised and that, in due course, proposals would have to be submitted to the Council as to how they should be treated. He mentioned that the sector for ceramics liad already been processed and the Commission's proposals were now Before the Council (see my Memorandum No 120).

2.

Ernst repeatedly stressed that the Conmission did not wish to "Burt" Hong Kong by formulating proposals that were pre- Judid to the Colony 's interesta (but what reliance can be placed on this statement?). He felt, therefore, that it would be advisable for this office to keep in very close touch with him, and bis colleagues, over the coming months so that we might dimms, informally, the several suggestions they had under consideration . Thus, Ernst felt, both sides might arrive at an agreed position that would not prove unfavourable to Hong Kong. That it had to be understood, he continue, that nothing he or his colleagues appeared to accept could be classified as binding upon the Commis- sion.

I replied that I could not say whether Hong Kong would wel- come the opportunity to open and continue this type of informal dialogue but I would seek instructions.

3.

Several facets of the CCP raise serious doctrinal pro- blems both for Hong Kong und HM Government individually and colle c - tivaly. Ernst's initiative only serves to complicate matters. It clearly introduces difficult political and constitutional issLES for this office in its relationship to the UK Delegation to the EEC. I think we are all agreed that a gitua tion of this kind is not entirely unexpected. I have, therefore, discussed the whole issue with Hannay in the Delegation. He considers the & fee will have to write to the Board of Trade on the contents of this Memorandum and on the issues constitutional and otherwise as he sees them. He has promised me á copy of his letter,

ALP/jb

c.c. AG} AL; JUKDe 1 (Hannay)

Page 255Page 256