TNAG-2103-FCO40-2995-Future-of-Hong-Kong-exchanges-with-the-Chinese-on-the-Basic--1990 — Page 37

CONFIDENTIAL

of the SAR's autonomy...".

We should also be prepared to add, "of course one has to take into account that the constituent power for giving effect to the policies set out in the Joint Declaration rests with the PRC" and (if necessary) we must recognise that we are talking about a high degree of autonomy and not autonomy.

Article 19, Para 3

For background, "such as" reflects Chinese insistence that certain domestic acts of the CPG in relation to the SAR are acts of state, but I think the problem here may well be, as I commented in my minute of 6 January on this Article, one of evidence rather than an exclusion of jurisdiction.

I agree the public line.

Article 22

I agree the comment and the public line.

Article 24

I agree the comment and the public line.

Article 64

I agree the comment and the public line except the word "require" might be better than "elicit".

Article 66

I think that the 20% is going to be extremely difficult to operate. I should also repeat that I do not believe the nationality or right of abode qualification, however disagreeable, is contrary to the JD. I agree the public

line.

Article 106

As I have advised previously, the suggestion that the English text does not adequately reflect the Chinese text and that there should be a re-drafting on the basis of Lu Ping's proposal to the Governor will not solve our difficulties with this Article. This Article is intended as a fetter on the express provisions of the Joint Declaration and although the Chinese assert that it is a guideline, it is not so described but is in terms which could well be justiciable before the Courts. I do not think that the public line is right and I suggest that we should aim at something like:-

CONFIDENTIAL

/"The