TNAG-1341-FCO40-17721-Visit-by-Margaret-Thatcher--UK-Prime-Minister--to-Beijing-fo-1985 — Page 157

GR 500

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

475

Hkk 040/14

RECEIVED INTRE

27 DEC 1984

DESK OFFICER

INDEX

57

FM HONG KONG 2111352 DEC 84

TO IMMEDIATE FOO

TELEGRAM NUMBER 3852 OF 21 DECEMBER

INFO IMMEDIATE PCKING

FROM PRIVATE SECRETARY

PA

ACLION L..

MAIY

**

MIPT: PRIME MINISTER'S VISIT: SECRETARY OF STATE'S MEETING WITH EXECUTIVE COUNCIL

SUMMARY:

1. UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS TOOK THE OPPORTUNITY OF THEIR MEETING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO RAISE THE CONCERNS ABOUT THE DRAFT BILL REPORTED IN HONG KONG TELNO 3813. THE SECRETARY OF STATE EXPLAINED WHY IT WAS NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE TERMINATION OF SOVEREIGNTY IN THE BILL AND TO INCLUDE PROVISIONS ON NATIONALITY. NO CONCLUSIONS WERE REACHED.

DETAIL:

TERMINATION OF SOVEREIGNTY:

2. SIR S.Y. CHUNG SAID HE ASSUMED THAT THE SECRETARY OF STATE HAD BEEN INFORMED OF THE DISCUSSION IN THE COUNCIL ON 18 DECEMBER (REPORTED IN HONG KONG TEL UNDER REF). UNOFFICIAL MEMBERS REMAINED UNCONVINCED OF THE NEED TO PROVIDE NOW FOR THE TERMINATION OF SOVEREIGNTY IN THE DILL, ESPECIALLY WHEN THERE HAD BEEN A DIFFERENCE OF VIEW BETWEEN LEGAL ADVISERS AS TO WHETHER IT WAS NECESSARY. AS THE UNOFFICIALS SAW IT, THE AGREEMENT CONTAINED A BRITISH COMMITMENT ON SOVEREIGNTY WHICH WAS MATCHED BY A CHINESE COMMITMENT REGARDING THE BASIC LAW. IT WOULD BE SOME YEARS BEFORE THE CHINESE FULFILLED THEIR PART OF THE BARGAIN. THERE WAS NO NEED FOR HMG TO FULFIL THEIR COMMITTMENT ON TERMINATION OF SOVEREIGNTY NOW. THAT WAS WHY THEY STRONGLY PREFERRED THE ORDER IN COUNCIL PROCEDURE.

•

3. THE SECRETARY OF STATE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS HMG'S JUDGEMENT THAT RATIFICATION OF THE AGREEMENT COULD NOT TAKE PLACE UNLESS PROVISION HAD BEEN MADE IN THE BILL FOR THE TERMINATION OF SOVEREIGNTY. TO INTERPOSE AN ADDITIONAL STEP IN THE PROCESS AS THE UNOFFICIALS PROPOSED, COULD DESTROY CHINESE TRUST IN BRITISH GOOD FAITH, BUILT UP WITH SUCH DIFFICULTY, AND COULD EVEN PUT CHINESE RATIFICATION AT RISK. SIR P. CRADOCK AND SIR R. EVARS ENDORSED THIS ASSESSMENT, SIR P. CRADOCK EXPLAINED THAT THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO COURSES (TERMINATION IN THE PILL AND AN ENABLING CLAUSE FOLLOWED BY A SUBSEQUENT ORDER-IN-COUNCIL) FROM ONE CRUCIAL POINT OF VIEW, IN EITHER CASE PARLIAMENT WOULD PE ABLE TO DECIDE AT A LATER DATE NOT TO PROCEED WITH THE TRANSFER OF SOVEREIGNTY IF THE CHINESE FAILED TO FULFIL THEIR COMMITMENTS UNDER THE AGREEMENT.

CONFIDENTIAL

14.