It is not at all clear to me whether No Brony is talking only about the particular case of the telegram on textiles (this would seem to be so, since he concludes his latter by offering to help draft" such a telegram") or about guidance telegrams in general (as would seem to be implied by the earlier reference to "these guidance telegrams"). As a general principle, there is something in what he says: we were ashed in Pramila as often about Hong Kong policies as about those of the UK. But the mechanics of providing
ཨི་ guidance on the attitudes of dependent territories to even major questions on which we provide guidance on HMG's policies would be horrendous. In Manila we took a pretty robust line: if the we drew the answer about Hong Kong's altitude we gave it; but otherwise (and more often) we explained that our main function was to represent the Goverment of the UK and we were not staffed or briefed to answer detail for Hong Kong. The most we could do was offer to find out anaves to specific questions: that, in general, is probably the fire to stick to. Otherwise we are going to let ourselves, other deportments in London and posts overseas in for a lot of unwelcome extra work.
2. But if N Bray is not to be deterred from the idea of much a telegram on textiles, I can see no harm in our making a special exception, since this is a question where Hong Kong has a major interest that is radically different from ons.
W. Chantill
161,
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.