TNAG-0979-FCO40-1198-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1980 — Page 159

CONFIDENTIAL

a)

b)

realisation that CUKC is not retainable; and

separate citizenship for individual dependencies are almost certainly not obtainable.

[N.B. One does not have to have a separate citizenship law for each dependency to creat separate citizenships for them: to legislate in our Act for the creation of the status of citizen of Hong Kong/ Gibraltar, etc, is to create separate citizenships for each of those territories (albeit that the terms of this citizenship are identical.]

c) if we are to avoid separate citizenships for each dependency

there must be a single collective citizenship for the purposes of the Act and we need a name for it and if we are to avoid the word "colony/colonial, as virtually all Governors request, there is really no choice but the one in the draft telegram or a minor variant of this. But if, as seems genuinely desired, we are to use administrative variands so as to attach the name of each dependency in some way to the title the collective title is less important. Can Hong Kong endorse our choice?

d)

for the collective title, assuming the re-establishment of "British subject" the front runners, taking account of Hong Kong's preferences, are:

i)

ii)

11

British subject: Citizen of the British Dependent

Territories (Hong Kong);

British subject: British Dependent Territories

Citizen (Hong Kong);

iii)35:British (Hong Kong) Citizen;

iv)BS: British Citizen (Hong Kong).

The draft telegram advocates i), though ii) would do just as well. I think that the balance of the arguments would go against(i) and(i), but for the reasons expressed in paragraph 1 of this minute it is virtually impossible to come conclusion without assessing the consequences for the effect on many other sections of the proposed legislation. It is for this reason that I advocate flexibility and not a rigid advocacy of a particular one of this list - unless that one is i) or ii) above. As you know, this was Donald Murray's choice because of the China angle and the need to have the minimal suggestion of a separate citizenhip (and it is also my first choice).

15 February 1980

CONFIDENTIAL

лепер

W Jones

Nationality and Treaty Department