TNAG-0384-FCO40-430-Trade-relations-between-Hong-Kong-and-the-EEC-1973 — Page 24

5. Mr. Robinson said the Hong Kong case was in fact a parellel to the domestic case at home. If we pushed Hong Kong's case hard it would have to be taken to the Council of Ministers where a rebuff would be inevitable. This would inevitable lead to unfavourable and damaging press comment here. Mr. Royle said that he did not see that a lost battle would damage .M.G.'s interests since we would at least have been seen to be fighting seriously for liong Kong. He stressed the need to go into negotiation on Hong Kong with a real intention of succeeding. Ministers would take any rap there was but did not think there would be much of one. There might well be many Labour and Conservative anti-marketeers who would be lobbied by Hong Kong and would press Hong Kong's case actively in the House of Commons. Mr. Robinson said that neither the D.T.I. nor Hong Kong really believed that Hong Kong would suffer from the G.S.P. Mr. Royle, however, pointed out the many problems which were building up for Hong Kông. Without them it might have been possible to delay doing some- thing for Hong Kong on .S.P. He repeated

He repeated that he did not think there would be much trouble in the House of Commons. We must go ahead and make an approach on Hong Kong's behalf. We must see that Hong Kong was not put in a worse position than its competitors. Mr. Robinson asked if he meant all Hong Kong's competitors in all the products in question or only those in Section c) and d) of paragraph 1 of Annex B to Mr. Stuart's submission of 26 September. It was also crucial to decide whether we should insist on liong Kong being treated as well as its competitors or whether we were insisting that her competitors should be treated as badly as ilong Kong. We should have to prepare a paper for an E.U.M. meeting next week. The D.T. I. would oppose holding out for Hong Kong to be treated as well as her competitors but probably would not object too strongly if we demanded that her competitors should be treated as badly as herself. The D.T.I. fear was that the Community would refuse to adopt freer circulation of textiles. Mr. Stuart did not think that the D.T.I. objection would be insurmountable. The quantities of goods involved would be very small. Mr. Robinson asked why, in that case, were we bothering to make such a fuss on Hong Kong's behalf. ir. Youde pointed out that if the quantities involved were so insignificant why should Hong Kong be excluded. He pointed out that to deal only with Section c) and d) in the enslosure would not cover the question of footwear which was also a Hong Kong concern. Mr. Royle concluded the discussion by

/saying

- 3-

CONFIDENTIAL

5