TNAG-0464-FCO40-529-Entitlement-of-Hong-Kong-to-EEC-Generalised-Scheme-of-Prefer-1974 — Page 33

Ente

169

}

RECORD OF A MEETING HELD IN ROOM 320 DO T

AT 3.30 ON 23 OCTOBER 1074

カー 1 VICTORIA SORENT

Present:

Mr C W Roberts)

Miss C H »] ~h)

Mr B Loire

Mr R Hurt

CRE 2

CD of Industry

EID, FCO

RECEIVED IN REGISTRY No. 51

以

2 5 OCT 1974

Mr K Hanna

Mr D J Burb-iden

KIOD, CO CRE 2

Mr W Dorward

Mr L Mills

Hong Kong Representation, Geneva Hong Zone Dentrent of Commerce

and Industry

{

Mr Roberts

Mr Dorward and Mr Mills came at Mr Roberts' invitation to discuss their intention of presenting a memorandum to the Commission on textile restraints. invited them to outline their reasons for wishing to do this.

2.

The Hon Kane

Mr Dorward said he thought this was the optimum tima Gendates 77

while nerq'iating re still being iscursed w Member Statue to influence the Communite's e'titude towards the bilateral textile negotiations Governant wanted to impress upor the Community that it took the terms of the MFA seriously and exected the Community to do the same. One of the requirements of the MFA was that there should be equitable treatment of contracting parties.

T +

was therefore inevitable that concessions or lack of them - in the GSP should be taken inte account, since in this field Hong Kong res subject to discrimination. The Community could not deny that a link existed between the two sects: it was generally believed that the Commission had used GSP considerations to bring pressure to bear on other courtries on 1971 restraint arrangements: could work both ways.

But the link

Hong Kong would argue that inequitable treatment of Hong Kone textiles under the GSP should find commensation in the bilateral agreement.

Mr Roberte replied that the "K authoritiza had to view this suggested approach

We did not feel that the Cmmunity wwll bol moved by a formal verresontation of this kin2, and the muction o'd probably be unsympathetic. Te felt it woull be wiser to use this arciment, if at all, in a less formal setting an at a later stage in negotiations. terms of paragraph 5 in particular might be considered provocative and cald have

The

an a verse effect or the mandate disenasions. This was the view of all those most closely involved in the Working Group.

with real concern. It was n question of tactics.

.

Mr Dorward and Mr Mills denied that they intended in a way to threaten the Community Hon • Kone wo in no position to do that. that Hong Kone's case for equitable treatment under the MFA should be clearly

They were only concerned stated. They did not think that anyone who read their paper fairly and carefully cmll find it threatening. On the question of tactics thair experience wes that i was vital to influence the perit on before a mandate had been agreed; thereafter it wa« almost impossible to sevıra inoxvements. Ne 10-po emphasized that the "IK intended to unhold ea terms of the MPA. But he folttonfly that the mapen in its present form would have an Cv rse effect on the attitude of Member States. In particular the references to Article 3 of the MPA would be considered provocative.

There was

▼

#

A dismission of the mossibility of reinafting the rares.

1 Onbenkā proposed that most of ngraimonh 5 and all of nerarnarh 7 should be Anlatad. Pargemanh 7 would revive memories of the resentment felt when Yong Kong

1