TNAG-2103-FCO40-2995-Future-of-Hong-Kong-exchanges-with-the-Chinese-on-the-Basic--1990 — Page 41

CONFIDENTIAL

027157 MDHOAN 4402

54

CONFIDENTIAL

FM FCO

TO IMMEDIATE HONG KONG

TELNO 502

OF 05170OZ MARCH 90

AKCO12/3

RECEIVED IN REG TRY

12 MAR 1990

DEAK OFFICE&

K

INFO IMMEDIATE PEKING, UKREP JLG HONG KONG

YOUR TELNO 821: BASIC LAW: ARTICLE 106

laken

ор

фу

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.

HURD

YYYY

Tel out

pe

PAGE 1 CONFIDENTIAL