TNAG-0980-FCO40-1199-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-British-nationality-1980 — Page 232

Mr Adams

CONFIDENTIAL

H.KK 3401

(12)

RIVED IN RICH

51

Bylin

DASK OFFICE INDEX

NEW NATIONALITY LAW: BRIEFING FOR HONG KONG

1. You commented on Mr Clift's minute to you of 30 June that we should discuss this at our meeting at the Home Office tomorrow. My own view is that too much emphasis is being put on the need for references to EXCO; there might have been some case for this when we were at the discussion stage, but in my view once it was decided to refer this to Ministers all that EXCO could reasonably expect was

They skill crved allowed the decision. The timing of the conveying of that decision should aufhis west be governed by a number of circumstances.

sime explantton.

2. My principal concern about the timing of the notification to EXCO is the nature and the purpose of the message conveyed. Frankly, I find it difficult to believe that it will be helpful tactically to tell EXCO at an early stage that Ministers have considered their most recent representations but rejected them. If EXCO then have to wait some weeks before they get fuller details from the fuller briefing on the White Paper immediately before it is published they are likely to be irritated rather than consoled.

3. We have reached this point before in considering colonial citizenship and titles. After several rounds of consultation last year, during which

Hong Kong concluded that to have a separate category of citizenship for colonial belongers was the prime aim and that the title was not so important, we put to Hong Kong and the other dependencies the limited range of titles which it seemed to us were the only options available. Prominent in this list was the one favoured by the White Paper: Citizen of the British Dependent Territories. At this point Hong Kong rejected all these titles, went back to square one, and resumed their arguments for either a joint citizenship with the UK or retention of the title CUKC. (NB. though Hong Kong did mention that they would like to retain the title " British Subject" it has never featured prominently in their arguments.)

4. In brief,

so far as NTD is concerned, Hong Kong's track record is not good. In my view the principle value to be gained from any notification to EXCO of the decision of Ministers on this subject is to prevent them from going over the same arguments again and to direct their attentions to acceptability of 11 Citizen of the British Dependent Territories" and to ensure that any alternative to be forwarded is a close variant of that title or meets the specification required (and we have not been able to find a title that meets the required specification without being a close variant of that title).

Imones

W Jones

Nationality and Treaty Department

1 July 1980

cc Mr Clift HKGD

CONFIDENTIAL