TNAG-1317-FCO40-1720-Future-of-Hong-Kong-meetings-of-the-Cabinet-Defence-and-Over-1984 — Page 133

SECRET

open to question.

(f) a mixture of (d) and (e) would provide a fairly representative

sounding of opinion. It could be defended on the grounds that a mix of approaches (part stimulated debate, part receptiveness to volunteered opinions) exposed HMG to the widest practicable expression of views),

We

13. With options (d), (e) and (f), careful consideration would need to be given to the type of explanatory or commendatory statement which might accompany the publication of the draft agreement. should ensure that public opinion in Hong Kong fully understood the constraints within which the negotiators had worked and the absence

(This process of of any realistic alternative to what was on offer. explanation is already under way.) The more explicitly we were able to urge acceptance of the draft agreement by Hong Kong, moreover, the more likely it would be that the Chinese would be reconciled to the whole exercise. We cannot yet decide precisely in what way the draft agreement will be put to the Hong Kong people: but it is likely that both a document of explanation and a statement of

ommendation will be required.

CONCLUSIONS

14. Before the publication of the draft agreement we must seek to maintain what is demonstrably a process of active consultation with Hong Kong opinion. The active soliciting of views and in particular the organisation of formal debate could cause us problems both with the Chinese and with Hong Kong opinion: but we must in any case make use of Hong Kong views in negotiation with the Chinese where we judge that they will help in obtaining an acceptable agreement. may be helpful to reveal more details of the likely agreement (if this can be done in a way tolerable to the Chinese) by means of a second Ministerial statement to put our position and its constraints more clearly on record.

It

15. For the final process of assessing the acceptability of a draft agreement we should use a mix of options (d) and (e) in para 12 above. We should encourage debate through existing bodies on the

SECRET