TNAG-0901-FCO40-1111-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1979 — Page 118

(30)

GR 270

CONFIDENTIAL

3

HKK 34

'CONFIDENTIAL

FM HONG KONG 6609252 JUL 79 (AMENDED VERSION)"

TO PRIORITY F.C.0.

TELEGRAM NUMBER 945 OF 6 JULY, 1979

INFO PRIORITY PEKING, ROUTINE HONG KONG GOVT OFFICE LONDON.

YOUR TELNO 487: BRITISH NATIONALITY LAW.

1. YOUR PARAGRAPH 2 OMITS THE IMPORTANT POINT OF PRINCIPAL THAT CATEGORY 'B' HAS A DIRECT CONSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIP TO THE UNITED KINGDOM GOVERNMENT AND IS SUBJECT TO IT, WHEREAS CATEGORY 'C' DOES NOT. IT IS THEREFORE MISLEADING TO APPLY THE SAME NOMENCLATURE TO BOTH, AND COULD BE OFFENSIVE TO 'B'.

(45)

2. UNDER PRESENT NOMENCLATURE AND IMMIGRATION ARRANGEMENTS THERE IS NO RIGHT OF ENTRY TO THE U.K. FOR CATEGORY 'B'. SO U.K. INTERESTS WOULD BE PRESERVED IF THE NOMENCLATURE REMAINED

UNCHANGED.

3. SINCE RIGHT OF ACCESS WOULD NOT BE AT ISSUE, CHANGE OF NOMENCLATURE FOR CATEGORY 'B' WOULD BE INTERPRETED HERE, AND I SUSPECT IN PEKING, AS AIMED AT HONG KONG AND INTENDED TO

DISTANCE THE U.K. FROM ITS COMMITMENTS TO HONG KONG - OTHERWISE WHY MAKE THE CHANGE? IT WOULD BE A PITY TO SOW SUCH DOUBTS.

4.

THEREFORE RECOMMEND THERE SHOULD BE A THREE-TIER SYSTEM:- (A) BRITISH CITIZENS:

(B) CITIZENS OF THE U.K. AND COLONIES:

(C) BRITISH OVERSEAS CITIZENS.

5. YOUR PARAGRAPH 3(1). YES.

6. YOUR PARAGRAPH 3(11), ANY CHANGE IN TITLE NOT NECESSITATED BY CONSTITUTIONAL OR OTHER CHANGE WOULD CAUSE UNDESIRABLE SPECULATION SO I HOPE YOU WILL OPPOSE IT, SINCE NO U.K. INTEREST IS INVOLVED.

17. THE FORMAL

CONFIDENTAL