TNAG-1596-FCO40-2181-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-1988 — Page 241

B)

C)

SECRET

64061 1

-

WE NEED OF COURSE TO AVOID GIVING ANY APPEARANCE OF HAVING

PREJUDGED THE 1987 REVIEW (ESPECIALLY ON DIRECT ELECTIONS)

AND TAKEN FIRM DECISIONS ON THE NECESSITY OF FURTHER CHANGES

IN THE POLITICAL SYSTEM.

WE FEEL WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS IN OUR POINTS ABOUT THE GRAND

ELECTORAL COLLEGE (GEC) CONCEPT. AS YOU RIGHTLY SAY IN PARA

11 OF YOUR TELNO 2487, IT IS NOT YET POSSIBLE TO SAY HOW THE

GEC IDEA WILL BE RECEIVED IN HONG KONG (CF THE 1987 REVIEW

AND PARA 2 (B) ABOVE). SOME REFERENCES IN YOUR TEXTS MIGHT

BE TAKEN TO SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED TO PURSUE

THE GEC OPTION COME WHAT MAY.

D)

3.

AT SOME POINTS WE FEEL THAT THE PAPERS PERHAPS GO FURTHER

THAN NECESSARY INTO POINTS OF DETAIL, THUS TYING OUR OWN

HANDS WHERE THIS MAY NOT BE NECESSARY OR DESIRABLE AT THIS

STAGE.

OUR COMMENTS IN IFTS ARE BASED ON INITIAL DISCUSSIONS

INVOLVING MCLAREN AND FIFOOT. WE NOTE YOUR PROPOSED TIMETABLE IN

PARA 4 OF YOUR TELNO 2486 AND OF COURSE AGREE THAT WE MUST AIM TO

GET THESE PAPERS TO THE CHINESE BEFORE END JULY. BUT THE

TIMETABLE WILL NEED TO BE MORE FLEXIBLE THAN THAT SUGGESTED:

BECAUSE OF JLG VII COMMITMENTS WE SEE NO REALISTIC PROSPECT OF

SUBMITTING TO MINISTERS BY 10 JULY. BUT WE SHALL AIM TO SUBMIT

EARLY THE FOLLOWING WEEKS, CONSULTING MINISTERS ALSO ON THE

DEGREE OF COLLECTIVE MINISTERIAL CLEARANCE WHICH THEY CONSIDER

NECESSARY.

4.

WE AGREE WITH COMMENTS IN PEKING TUR EXCEPT WHERE THEY

ARE OVERTAKEN BY OUR OWN AMENDMENTS.

5.

WE HAVE NOW RECEIVED YOUR TELNO 2606. WE DEAL WITH

EXCO'S COMMENTS SERIATIM IN THE COURSE OF IFTS.

HOWE

OCMIAN 4061

HONG KONG AGREEMENT: RESTRICTED

LIMITED

HD/HKD

HD/FED

RESEARCH DEPT.(FE)

DEP/HD PUSD

PS/LORD GLENARTHUR

PS/MR EGGAR

MR MCLAREN

MR GILLMORE

COPIES TO:

MR FIFOOT, LEGAL ADVISERS

-2-

Secret