TNAG-2205-FCO40-3162-Immigration-policy-changes-to-rules-1990 — Page 104

y:

n.

the most important topic and the least

The Presidency will table a further

frontiers and said that

id.

instigation a teach in for the 12 will be

e it on arrival

to the original questionnaire

ssive summary which at points begged the

xercise

hrough since the meeting n's demographic position was

: there was no deficit ithout harping on the United Kingdom picked up the French

desired process: the ntractability of agreeing

here could still be room for

tibility. If resident 3CNs ughout the EC, then there immigration policies. That !cessary to attempt only the

which simply recorded without comment

hister's remarks in March.

e of the available papers offered a basis dinators, still less the FAC. On the

ed that the papers, the thought they had , and the interaction also with growing ficulties over immigration in a number

approaches (except for the Commission,

y Taschner) to Article 8A less

ch claimed 8A did no more than confer a

residence 3CNS, and expressed doubt ever be practicable to adopt identical Even the Dutch took a notably could be achieved would take a long

to take the broadest possible view and

dination.

how these exchanges will

e the Chairman, I would seek abling my promised paper. and, clearly, how to take the the agenda for our bilateral ars their interpretation is ith one more shove they could n I do not expect Cartesian tly. The point remains,

isolated as we were

ic political concern with e less discriminating

room for the Germans and the Italians.

ly to their paper: if states were not en there had to be agreement about

priorities. The Italians - evidently terial instructions - acknowledged that

ment was the opposition that ich went through Co-

I paper (WG1

(WG1 629) circulated tions previously smoothed

: meeting. The consequence