remaining dependent territories in terms they would be likely
accept that the revision we were prepared to make at long
Kong's request has no practical significance.
And I would
not favour making an arrangement restricted to Hong Kong which
could be misconstrued by the Chinese government as having some special and exclusive
in the context AM.
L
bearing unwelcome to them negotiations over the future of Kays Kang.
6. This means that any provision for the description of
nationality in Hong Kong passports will have to extend at
least to the passports of the other dependent territories.
If we do this an attempt could be made to push us further to
describe BOCS, BPPs and the residual British subjects as
British in their passports. In logic there would be no
effectively use
adequate reply. But if this were to happen I think we could
get away with the argument which was used against Lord Geddes
about raising false hopes in the immigration context and by
pointing out the distinction between passport holders who
have a right of abode in a particular dependent territory and
X those who have none. The significant difference between BTCS
and BOCS, which we need not mention publicly, is that Hong Kong
have a special case because the passport question is inter-
twined with considerations of their future, and because
they have a political weight which enables them to advance
their interests in ways that are not available to BOCS, BPPS
and residual British subjects.
As we
7.
There is
a
shery political agument
(sh kill to helpky
Kory Kuy,
веронос
We would not wish to see Parliamentary interest in
nationality revived in any way that can be avoided I propose
to arrange for a Foreign Office Minister to speak to Lord
Geddes to ensure as far as possible that he does not revert to
the subject of his amendment.
18.
Page 45Page 46
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.