TNAG-1397-FCO40-1869-Future-of-Hong-Kong-Basic-Law-1985 — Page 173

.........

Restricted

Miller concluded that he wondered whether we could provide any Whitehall, as opposed to HKG, comment on Mr Cha's paper.

paper

4. I said that we should not be able to comment on the

which had been submitted to

the Basic Law Drafting Committee and was

therefore a matter for the Chinese. That said, our aim

just as much as Mr Cha's was stability. We were implementing

the agreed proposals in the White Paper with due care and

prudence. Mr Miller pressed me to comment on how ideas such as

Mr Cha's would be taken in to account in the 1987 review.

said that all ideas expressed in Hong Kong were naturally noted

and would no doubt be considered in 1987.

I

5. Mr Miller asked how Chinese ideas, set out in the Basic

Law, and British ideas, resulting from the 1987 review, could

be made compatible. We could not both go Our separate ways.

Was the Joint Liaison Group a vehicle for discussion of such

matters? I pointed to the terms of reference of the Joint

Liaison Group, underlining that it was tasked to concentrate in

its early years on matters such as

GATT, etc.

international agreements,

The 1987 review would, of course, precede the

Basic Law in Hong Kong.

present adopting a wait

one way ог the other on

circulation of a detailed text of the

I hoped that the Chinese, who were at

and see

attitude and commenting neither

Our moves on constitutional development, might be persuaded

that the measures we we re implementing would be right for Hong Kong in the future. They might then incorporate them in the Basic Law. Mr Miller asked how Chinese views would eventually

be made known to us.

I said that I was sure that if they

wished to give us their views they would find no difficulty in

doing so.

b.e. Eummerca

W G Ehrman

14 August

Restricted