TNAG-1401-FCO40-1873-Future-of-Hong-Kong-continued-participation-in-the-General-A-1985 — Page 58

E

A

B C D

F

I think

CODE 18-77

68A)

Mr Ehrman,

Mr Galsv

alsworthy

K1040/24 CONFIDENTIAL

RENESVEL

DY

- 2 JUL 1989

A

DE

INDE

ReferencAP.J.

very good piece of work. Only mico

PA

TO W

A four

Ask Pright thin

The Winshurs

HONG KONG AND THE GATT:

HkK 040/24

cul

endment. hat farm

and something

-aper: an excellent piece 4 PAPER FOR EXCO Constitutinal matters, but

We shall nod to

1715

us clean not

do quickly.

this need not stop

whhh DTC, which we 1. Hong Kong telno 838 contains the draft of such a paper. I have amended it in the light of comments from:

(a) UKMIS Geneva;

(b) Mr Fifoot

Others who received copies of the original text (Peking, ECD(E), TRED and FED) have no comments. I am minuting separately on the draft declarations referred to in para 15 of the Hong Kong TUR, and will be pursuing separately the other points in Mr Fifoot's minute.

2.

(a)

The revised text incorporates:

substantial drafting changes

(b) all but one of suggestions made by UKMIS Geneva

(c) all of the changes suggested by Mr Fifoot.

3.

On para

2(b) above, you should look at UKMIS' comments on para 6 of the original text in the light of para 3 of Dame Anne Warburton's teleletter of 1 May to Mr Galsworthy. The latter records the view of the GATT Secretariat that the word "could" should replace "should" in the draft UK declaration. If that is so, it must be reflected in the main paper. I must also point out that neither ECD(E)'s Legal Adviser nor Mr Fifoot are happy about the use of the conditional "could" in this context and would prefer "may". This is something we can put to UKMIS Geneva when we telegraph the revised text.

4. I agree with UKMIS Geneva rather than with Hong Kong about para 9 of the original text. I think that the argumentation against the Article XXXIII course is given fully in the text as it now stands.

5. On para 22 of the redraft I should be grateful for advice as to whom I should consult about direct accreditation' to the EEC of the Hong Kong Government's Brussels office.

I t

seems to me to be an inappropriate proposal.

6.

Subject to your comments on the redraft I propose to show it again to Mr Fifoot before sending it to the DTI for comments.

We should then telegraph the revised text (with revised declarations) to Hong Kong as soon as possible, with a covering explanatory telegram.

تہ

16 May 1985

Jan Priest

CONFIDENT I AL