NOTHING TO BE WRITTEN IN THIS MARGIN
CONFIDENTIAL
we shall ipso facto be accepting a return to
quantitative restrictions. AS paragraph 10
of the paper explains, this will render us open
to the virtual certainty of criticism from
Commonwealth countries, thich, other things being
equal, we should do our best to avoid.
6. Other things however are not equal. AS
paragraph 11 explains, if we attempted to secure a
derogation from the application of Article 4 of the
Long Term Arrangement, we should be extremely unlikely
to get it. The chances are strongly that we would
have in the end to give in after a public row, which
we would be publicly seen to lose. We should also
add to the dangerously long list of issues which
anyhow remain to be settled in the remaining
weeks of the negotiations.
&. The disadvantages in paragraph 6, which would
be both immediate and dangerously prejudicial to our
negotiating aims, outweigh those of paragraph 5,
on which in any case we have time to consider
palliative action (see below). We should therefore
not seek a derogation from the Community, and accept
as a consequence the re-introduction of
quantitative restrictions on cotton textiles from
our date of entry. We should not however parade this
acceptance. As recommended in paragraph 14(c) of the
paper, we need not specifically announce it. If the
Community ask us our intention we should press them
not to publicise our reply.
3. While the above is the only realistic solution
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.