TNAG-1081-FCO40-1331-Implications-for-Hong-Kong-of-changes-in-the-British-nationa-1981 — Page 188

Reference..

9.20.)

Mr Jones

N&TD

cc: Mr Clift, HK&GD Mr Marston, SED

Mr Hewitt, EAD

Еле

HER 3401l

›

31

RECEIVED IN A TY NO. 61 25 FEB 1981

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

مد

NATIONALITY BILL: ARRANGEMENTS FOR DEPENDENCIES

PA

RECISTRY Action Take

7303P40 3013

1. Thank you for sending me a copy of your minute of 23 February suggesting that a scheme for separate but identical ctiizenships would be the most desirable course, from a nationality point of view. I had not received this minute when we spoke earlier today about the draft submission attached to your minute of 20 February, and had assumed on the basis of that draft (particularly the final paragraph, which says that it 'might just be practicable' but would be hazardous') that separate but identical citizenship was not really a runner. Since it appears that this assumption was mistaken, I am minut- ing to underline the difficulty of this option from a Falklands point of view.

2.

(SEN)

Your minute mentions the Falklands problem, which is also referred to in para 4 of the draft note attached to the submi-, ssion. As I explained in my minute to you of 20 February we have not consulted Island Councillors about the idea; but in our judgement and that of the Governor, separate Falklands citizenship would be certain to annoy the Argentines and cause problems for the Islanders when transitting Argentina (through which they have to travel to reach any other country).

3. The problem could not, I think, be solved by making separate citizenship an option which some dependencies might take up and others not. In this respect it seems to me that separate citizenship differs from the mere creation of a separate title (para 5 of the draft note attached to the submission), over which as I told you we would have no problems so long as the Falklands had the option not to use any specific title, (and so long as the Islanders were sensible enough not to insist that if other dependencies were going to use their titles, so should the Falklands). If most of the dependent territor- ies opted for separate citizenship and the Falklanders were left in a residual category with BIOT, then it would appear to them that they were being treated differently from other dependent territories. This would almost certainly revive pres- sures for them to be granted British citizenship - the objections to which are spelt out in para 3 of the draft submission. We hope, therefore, that you will not pursue the idea of separate but identical citizenship.

23 February 1981

CODE 18-77

H. Smith

RH Smith

South America Department 233 4970