TNAG-0979-FCO40-1198-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1980 — Page 122

Mr Cortazzi

cc Mr Murray

Mr Figg

Mr Clift HKGD

J

CONFIDENTIAL

HICK 34011 RECEIVED IN REGISTRY NO. 51 19 MAR 1980

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

PA

REGISTRY Action Taken

A

звоз

Aw 2/2

See 34

19/3

33

NEW NATIONALITY LAW: POINTS FOR THE MEETING WITH MR WOODFIELD ON 18 MARCH 1980

POINTS ARISING FROM MR CORTAZZI'S LETTER OF 14 MARCH

Possible Retention of a Unitary Form of Citizenship

(32)

This is not necessarily synonymous with retention of the title CUKC. Hong Kong have argued for retention of this title solely for colonial belongers and it was considered by the working party on reform of the

nationality law as a possible "reserved" title for those present

CUKCS who do not become British Citizens in the new Act. The

arguments against retention of CUKC in this form are obvious.

"Citizen of the UK"

х

2.

"British

I would prefer " British Subject: Citizen of the UK" to

Subject: British Citizen" But so far the Home Office have been

deeply attached to the term "British Citizen " and it may be

tactically unwise to try to drive them away from it. If the Home Office

prefer to retain "British Citizen" I would not argue against it provided that that was not an obstacle to retention of the prefix

"British Subject"

•

Consulation with FCO Ministers about Hong Kong.

3. Are we really committed to consulting FCO Ministers before

telegraphing to Hong Kong and again after we get their reply?

Points from Mr Woodfield's Letter

4.

Third

Presentation of their citizenship category. The problem does not derive from the creation of a third category. The watching critics

future are primarily concerned with the features of the East African Asian

UKPH, and the question of presentation of their future under the new

Act would have presented itself if there had been only two categories.

/5.

CONFIDENTIAL