TNAG-1378-FCO40-1826-Future-of-Hong-Kong-legislation-Hong-Kong-Bill-1985 — Page 136

CONFIDENTIAL

—

4

-

[IF IT IS SUGGESTED WE SHOULD LEAVE THE TERMINATION OF SOVEREIGNTY

TO A LATER ORDER IN COUNCIL RATHER THAN DEALING WITH IT IN THE BILL]

It would theoretically be possible to include a provision in the

Bill enabling a later Order in Council to terminate sovereignty.

If, however, this Order were to be subject to either the negative or

positive resolution procedures in this House, and I can understand

that the House might feel reluctant to authorise any other procedure

in an Order in Council of this nature, the government would not be

able to ratify the agreement. To do so would anticipate the views

of the House on these matters and commit them by legally binding international agreement

agreement to one particular view.

The substitution of such a procedure would give rise to considerable suspicion of our intentions. Nor do I believe that it would give us

any effective deterrent. I have difficulty in imagining such

drastic circumstances that we would want, when faced with the

imminent expiry of the lease over

of the lease over the New Territories,

the New Territories, to repudiate

the agreement. If such circumstances were to arise it would always

be open to Parliament to repeal this Act before the transfer of

sovereignty took place. This would have precisely the same effect as declining to make an Order in Council. In short, the Order in Council procedure would achieve nothing useful, and could give rise

to great difficulties now.

CONFIDENTIAL