RESTRICTED
the UK to enter Argentina without visas; conversely it would only allow Argentinians visa free admission to the UK and Islands. No Dependent Territories were covered by the 1968 agreement, and as I understand from MVD that the UK does not generally negotiate VAAS on their behalf, there seems no good reason to extend it to them and their citizens in amending it. In particular, I understand that Hong Kong have confirmed that they do not want to be covered by the revised agreement.
4. The question then arises of whether such an approach would be consistent with the line we have taken on the Benelux agreement, and with that which it is proposed we take on the Austrian one. Your note to Miss Hopkins points out that, in the former case,
we intended the new agreement to cover all British nationals, even those who do not have the right of abode in the UK or a Dependent Territory. You suggested that the revised agreement with Austria should cover all British nationals who have the right of abode in, or readmission to the UK or the right of abode in a Dependent Territory.
5.
I do not think that the approach i propose to the Argentine agreement is inconsistent with that we have taken on the Benelux one. Our 1960 VAA with the Netherlands, which was the starting point for a new agreement, is much wider than that with Argentina. It covers British passports bearing the name of any overseas dependent territory, and allows Dutch citizens to enter any of the many overseas territories listed in an Annex to it. Thus any updating would be bound to cover Dependent Territories and BDTCS, etc, with the right of abode in them. Moreover, there is little point in having a VAA with an EC country if it does not extend to Dependent Territories.
6. I do wonder, however, whether the revised agreement with Austria needs to be so wide. The principle of simply translating into current terminology, and our practice of not negotiating VAAS on behalf of Dependent Territories, suggest that it should only have the scope that I have proposed for the revised VAA with Argentina, apart from extending to Gibraltar and to BDTCS with the right of abode there. However, as there is a long history of discussions with the Austrians about the returnability of Hong Kong BDTCs and BN(0)s, they would presumably expect Hong Kong to be covered by the revised agreement. I also assume, though I am not certain, that Hong Kong themselves would want to be covered. Thus I suggest that the revised VAA with Austria should also cover Hong Kong, BDTCs with the right of abode there, and BN (0)s.
7.
Your note of 25 October 1989 pointed out that the descriptions of relevant British passports could no longer be conveniently contained in the main body of the VAA, and suggested that they would probably be better presented in the form of a schedule. I attach a draft of such a schedule for the purpose of amendment to the VAA with Argentina, which is based on the one attached to your note, but reflects, I hope, my proposal that the only non-British citizens who should be covered are those with
RESTRICTED
Sam Wild MAN. DENGAN P
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.