reversals) was found reasonable so long as it
was restricted to the periodic reviews of the
GPS. The Chairman suggested that when the EEC
put to us their proposals on Hong Kong, we could
as part of then introduce such conditions our reaction.
The Chairman summed up this part of the dis-
cussion to the effect that of the suggestions
advanced by Hong Kong, only the periodic review
seemed really practicable. The Governor stated
that he could not accept the arguments against
from the EEC offer the exclusion of textiles and footwear for all
beneficiaries.
ssort
The Chairman replied that in the
16a, resort it would depend on Ministers, but
advic
that advice in favour of such a course could not
be offered to them. However, the Governor's disappointment would be clearly noted.
Cater
This, if it occurand
16. Mr. Cater raised a technical point of im-
portance to Hong Kong, namely that where the
territory was not a beneficiary in the EEC
scheme, as in textiles and footwear, her per-
formance should not be included in the calcu-
lation of the corresponding duty quota.
would be to enlarge the quota for the benefit
of her competitors. Mr. Hannay said that we
had no information on EEC intentions on this
point, and it was unlikely that they had devoted
thought to it yet. The Chairman observed that
not logic would surely permit quota calculation
in the manner Hong Kong feared. However, this
too could be clarified shortly. EEC domestic
industry would no doubt ensure that the quota
was smaller, not larger.
As regards
7. the items in paragraph 3 (ii) of Codel
229, Sir J. Cowperthwaite said that these also
4
1
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.