TNAG-1284-FCO40-1636-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-1984 — Page 77

SECRET

not want a test of acceptability and would not like a document giving the Hong Kong Government's view on the agreement. He assumed that either HMG or the Governor would have to say that the agreement was acceptable to the people of Hong Kong, or if this was not possible, that the agreement was the best that could be achieved in the circumstances.

6.

The PUS asked whether the Governor thought ExCo would accept the agreement. If they would not, the Governor would presumably have to commend it on his own, not just privately to ExCo but publicly. The Governor thought that some members of ExCo would resign over the issue, which would leave the Governor acting without the full advice of his Executive Council. (He added that the Hong Kong Government was constituted by the Governor acting on the advice of ExCo. The Hong Kong Government was not an entity on its own separate from ExCo.) This would create a very difficult position though it would be constitutional. The Governor could instruct the Civil Service to put out a note commending the agreement. But it would clearly be seen in Hong Kong that the Governor was acting against the advice of ExCo, a situation to be avoided if at all possible, not least because the agreement would require legislation in Hong Kong and legislation would need the support of the Legislative Council.

7.

The PUS said the Governor would have to use all his authority to get ExCo to accept the agreement. The Governor agreed, but said that HMG must make clear to the Chinese that unless the agreement were more detailed than that now on offer, it might not be deliverable, and that in these circumstances HMG would not be able to put it to Parliament. In this context it was a pity that the Chinese Prime Ministeer was not visiting London for talks with the Prime Minister.

8.

The Governor said that he thought the statement HMG made to Parliament might be on the lines that they had negotiated an agreement with the Chinese, that there were reservations about it in Hong Kong, but that HMG were satisfied that it was a fair agreement, and therefore commended it to Parliament. The PUS said that there was a need for an additional clause about its acceptability to Hong Kong opinion, or at least saying that opinion in Hong Kong recognised that it was the best deal that could be achieved.

Мы

Hut Jay.

Michael Jay PS/PUS