E
DSR 11C
as the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong, and BNA 1981 is
not yet in force. Moreover there are no convincing
grounds on which the exclusion of the present excluded
categories can be defended, nor can we discover whether
they were intentionally or unintentiaonlly omitted from
the 1972 Declaration. A list of the categories then
excluded is at Flag E.
(b)
Although the Declaration is to be deposited in EC
as a unilateral statement, in order to avoid criticism
it should be as close as possible in scope and form to
the current Declaration. As to scope, we can in EC say
that the numbers of Gibraltar people to be added by the
new Declaration are believed to be very small compared
with those already covered by the 1972 Declaration. Nor
is there any risk of repercussions elsewhere since there
are no other dependent territories in Europe and section
5 of BNA 1981 is limited to Gibraltar. As to form, the
definition now proposed is more basic than the present
one and does not define the connection with Gibraltar
by virtue of which those covered would qualify as BDTC
(formerly CUKC). To meet demands for an explanation of
an amplifier clapenation its coverage, we have prepared a draft supplementary
document (attached) which can be drawn on by UKREP
Brussels in presenting the Declaration, and used
subsequently for reference in answering questions about i
(c) It seems preferable that any controversy about the
definition in respect of Gibraltarians should take place
in Brussels rather than in Parliament.
(d) We have previously hesitated about including minor
BDTCS by adoption in Gibraltar because of the risk of
abuse by means of adoptions of convenience in order to
secure BC. We have however reconsidered this in the ligh
/of
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.