TNAG-1333-FCO40-1765-Future-of-Hong-Kong-legislation-1985 — Page 254

CONFIDENTIAL

(i) by a clause in the Act which would

itself terminate UK sovereignty over the

ceded territories as from 1 July 1997;

or

(ii) by an enabling clause giving power to

make an Order in Council bringing into

effect the termination of sovereignty

from 1 July 1997.

DSR 11C

My first wishlist, as explored at O.D (1), → to favour uption (11).

The choice between options (i) and (ii) is essentially

a matter of parliamentary tactics, on which I should

further greatly value your advice. on reflection and following

further-discussion with our Legal Advisers we have come

to favour option (i), for the reasons set out below.

犭

and if ratification

is to precede the

making of the

Order in Connil, the latter

Option (ii) would leave a trigger mechanism in our

hands in the form of the Order in Council to bring into

effect the termination of sovereignty which would not be

made until nearer to 1997. This would however be of

little practical use as a deterrent to the Chinese: our

rights on the leased territories disappear in 1997

anyway, and the remaining territory is not viable on its

own. It can be argued that option (ii) would have some

presentational advantages, since the transfer of

sovereignty is so far in the future. But there is one

Attorney General has important consideration: the Law Officers have advised us

to the effect

that, in order to make it possible to ratify the

agreement, an Order in Council, if option (ii) is

followed, must not be subject to either affirmative or

CONFIDENTIAL