TNAG-2103-FCO40-2995-Future-of-Hong-Kong-exchanges-with-the-Chinese-on-the-Basic--1990 — Page 34

CONFIDENTIAL

CONFIDENTIAL

AKCOIZ

13

VED IN RES TY

RECEWOR

€ APR 1900

fa

FM FCO

TO DESKBY 13010OZ HONG KON

IN

TELNO 538

OF 121545Z MARCH 90

{

REGISTRY

A

action Taken

AND TO DESKBY 13010OZ PEKING UKREP JLG HONG KONG

FOLLOWING TELEGRAM NOW REPEATED TO YOU AT REQUEST OF DEPT

BEGINS:

CONFIDENTIAL

FM FCO

TO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG

TELNO 502

OF 05170OZ MARCH 90

INFO IMMEDIATE PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG

62

052740

MDHOAN 4803

YOUR TELNO 821: BASIC LAW: ARTICLE 106

1.

WE ACCEPT THAT IN VIEW OF THE TIMING CONSTRAINTS A SINGLE APPROACH WILL HAVE TO SUFFICE. BUT OUR LEGAL ADVISERS REMAIN STRONGLY OF THE OPINION THAT AN AMENDMENT TO THE ENGLISH TEXT WILL NOT SOLVE OUR PROBLEM.

2. EVEN IF THE ENGLISH TEXT WAS AMENDED TO REFLECT THE QUOTE BROADER INTERPRETATION UNQUOTE, WE COULD NOT CLAIM PUBLICLY THAT WE WERE SATISFIED THAT THIS MADE THE ARTICLE A MERE GUIDELINE AND THAT THE COURTS WOULD NOT INTERPRET IT AS A REQUIREMENT. THIS POINT WOULD HAVE TO BE REFLECTED IN THE SUGGESTED PUBLIC LINE IN PARA 2(A) OF TUR BY AMENDING IT TO READ QUOTE BUT READ AS A WHOLE, IT IMPLIES THAT THE PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN IS A GUIDELINE RATHER THAN A REQUIREMENT AND, IF THE COURTS WERE TO INTERPRET IT AS SUCH, WOULD NOT CONFLICT DIRECTLY WITH THE JOINT DECLARATION UNQUOTE. SUCH A LINE WOULD OBVIOUSLY BE VERY MUCH WEAKER.

3. OUR LEGAL ADVISERS CONTINUE, THEREFORE, TO HOLD FIRMLY TO THE VIEW THAT PEKING SHOULD DEPLOY THE SPEAKING NOTE IN YOUR TELNO 796 MINUS THE LAST PARAGRAPH. WE SHOULD BE GRATEFUL FOR YOUR VIEWS ON THE CONSIDERATIONS IN PARA 2 ABOVE. LIKE YOU, WE ARE ANXIOUS TO RESOLVE THIS POINT AS SOON AS POSSIBLE SO THAT PEKING

CAN TAKE ACTION.