+
Article 4(2): Acquisition by "separate" BDTCS
12. The Home Office view was that there was no reason to deny "separate" BDTCS,
who would not lose their BDTC status, the opportunity to apply for BN(0) status.
Such people would still come within the definition of BDTC by virtue of a
connection with Hong Kong as specified in the Order, and might therefore be said
to be entitled to apply by the wording of the Hong Kong Act.
13. Hong Kong argued that the clear intention of the Memorandum was to cover
people who were to lose their British nationality. They appreciated that some
people might find it more convenient to have BN (0) rather than BDTC passports, but
they thought that the Chinese would object to this. The FCO thought that, in fact,
the Chinese probably would not. Hong Kong however felt very strongly on this
point.
Agreed to exclude "separate" BDTCs from article 4(2), and to put Hong Kong's
arguments for so doing to Ministers.
Article 4(2): Acquisition by dual BC/BDTCs
14. During the course of the discussion on this article, the position of dual
BC/BDTCS was raised. There was some pressure from Hong Kong to deny such persons
the right to acquire BN(0) status. This was strongly resisted. On the fact of
it it seemed ultra vires, and since it seemed highly unlikely that a BC would opt
for a BN(0) rather than a BC passport, it seemed an unnecessary and controversial
restriction.
Agreed that dual BC/BDTCs should be eligible to apply for BN(0) status.
Commonwealth citizens: Article 7(3)
15. All parties agreed that BN(0)s should continue to have the rights and
duties of Commonwealth citizens in the UK. The point at issue was how this should
be covered in the Order. Hong Hong were concerned about the Chinese attitude if
BN(0)s were baldly stated in the Order to be Commonwealth citizens, since Hong Kong
would not be part of the Commonwealth after July 1997.
- 5 -
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.