Our view, namely that the extension from Germany to the Netherlands of some form of unilateral restraint would have been useful, remains unchanged. We also stick to our view that Hong Kong is the best judge of the domestic difficulties that this would cause, and must therefore make its own decision.
Telegram 429 is concerned with the German "additional" quotas. The situation is certainly absurd, in that this is a purely German problem, yet the solution is a community compromise. It was made perfectly clear by the Germans, not only on 16 April but also on 2 April when the subject was first raised in the Committee and I confidently gave UK consent to their request, that no increase in the number of pieces was in question. Even the French understood this. Liz Lowne and I were amazed and appalled at the docile way in which the German delegates accepted. the fatuous compromise figure of 1250 tonnes, reached after a haggle that sounded more like a race-horse changing hands in a pub than the EEC making policy.
7
On conversion factors, the only thing that seems clear to me is that the Committee would not be a suitable forum for discussion of the subject. We would be willing to take part in a small working group to resolve the problems, at any time. There is much to be said for Hong Kong's views, and it is a great pity that they have damaged their credibility by trying to be subtle, logical, honest and aggrieved, all at the same time.
I am copying this letter to Ken Hazle and David Hall, and to John de Fonblanque in Brussels, and to Cherry Welch and John Hagestadt. May I leave it to you to pass on to Hong Kong whatever parts or paraphrases of it you think fit?
Yours even Rozin
RP HOPE
2
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.