GOXIA-JOS DVIJA
To:
From:
Director of Commerce and Industry, Hong Kong.
Counsellor for Hong Kong Commercial Affairs, Brussels.
Memorandum No. 225
File No. 2/12/118
EEC
CCP
CONFIDENTIAL
Date 2nd September 1969
15
Prompted by the apparent speed and gravity of potential EEC developments in this field (for example, in the Qutlery rubber footwear, and umbrella sectors) and a lack of clarity in the Brussels Office papers on this subject, I was in the process of drafting a memorandum to you to seek greater clarification, broadly on exactly where we now stand vis-à-vis the UK and the EEC in terms of a formal approach to the latter in reaction to these growing developments and, more personally, to determine the limits of my own field of activity vis-à-vis the EEC following Jones' exchange with Carter.
2.
A study of all the papers here, and discussions with UKDel have not enabled me fully to resolve these matters.
3.
Your paper (TIAB M/17/69:TEXTAB M/21/69) however arvi,od while I was drafting and this gave mo 8 ome further guid nos on the Department's present thinking. However as that. paper was written at an early stage in the sectorial approach and we have now to face more alarming prospects, it could be that you enlarged on this subject ora ctually changed course in the discussions at the TIAB and TEXTAB meetings concerned. The minutes of those meetings have not reached me as yet and I have therefore no indication if such was the case or if positive decisions have recently been taken. I nevertheless still feel prompted to advise you of my une ase as I am somewhat concerned about the potential loss of tempo to our general approach and I do perhaps also need to have my own actual and potential sphere of activity a little more olearly delineated, although this latter point is obviously of little significance.
4.
on
An example of lack of clarity is that, whilst Carter's draft reply to Derek Jones' letter of 12th June was record here (thanks to a copy of AL'8 memorandum N° 333 of 30th Jone), there was no indiciation at first on my files whether or not Carter did in the event formally reply in the terms of that draft. I have since seen the actual reply on the UKDel files.
5.
away
·
This exchange seems at best to have only cleared a little of the brushwood.
6.
Hannay 's "misgivings" in his letter of 2nd May have beenmagnified beyond his original intention. They were in faot expressed in our own interests. We had no intention of course of falling into any Ernst-like trap of commitment to "an agreed position that would not prove unfavourable to Hong Kong prior to consultations with HMG but Purves' memorandum N 119
O
"
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.